IMPACT??? Now that is an interesting word. Status quo doeth not impact make.
Impact may not be in this one piece - it may simply be street cred to boost the 90&9 rep.
Even the Wall Street Journal will run a Patrick Buchanan piece from time to time.
Sometimes it's the readership's response that makes the impact...
__________________ "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity." Dave Barry 2005
I am a firm believer in the Old Paths
Articles on such subjects as "The New Birth," will be accepted, whether they teach that the new birth takes place before baptism in water and Spirit, or that the new birth consists of baptism of water and Spirit. - THE PENTECOSTAL HERALD Dec. 1945
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves
Please understand that I am not trying to stir the proverbial pot here. I have a sincere question that I am trying to find the answer to.
Consider the hypothetical: A person, say a baptist preacher somewhere in the US where there is no OP church etc..., is studying the bible, and seeking God in prayer. During this time of seeking God, he discovers the truth of Jesus name baptism, Holy Ghost infilling and tongues, and the oneness of God. Now in trying to please God, and studying the scriptures for more truth, this baptist (formerly baptist) minister stumbles across Deut 22:5. In his study, and considering society of the last 30 years (say this pastor is @ 30 years old), he is trying to find a way to apply gender distinction in dress in a way that is relevant for today. In the society he has grown up in, both women and man wear pants. So in his study he DOES NOT come to the same conclusions regarding pants/skirts that traditional OP's adhere to. Is this person's position acceptible in the sight of God? He is now teaching his congregation and baptizing them in Jesus name, teaching them to seek the Holy Ghost, and is teaching them to lead a seperated life, but he simply has not come to the same conclusion as OP's regarding pants/skirts. Is this a tenable positions for this "baptist" minister? Can he maintain this position and still be acceptible in the sight of God?
This discussion of women and pants is a 'Round Robin' discussion that will never end.
No matter how convincing the arguments are on either side, we are NOT going to convince the other that they are wrong.
This discussion of women and pants is a 'Round Robin' discussion that will never end.
No matter how convincing the arguments are on either side, we are NOT going to convince the other that they are wrong.
Well, let me make my motivations clear for starting this thread. I am not trying to prove anyone wrong per-se, in that I am merely trying to find answers for myself. I definitly see the merit in the traditional pants/skirts position, but I am not convinced that is the only position that could be considered an accurate interpretation of Deut 22:5. Again, I see the merit in that interpretation, I just don't think it is the only interpretation. Thus I am trying to see if there is anyone who has a more conservative bent in their interpretation of Deut 22:5, but has made allowances, or has a more balanced approach than the "if you are a girl and wear pants, you're destined to be lost". I just don't see THAT as a biblical stance to take! I am trying to be conservative in my approach, but I want to take a purely biblical approach, not the UC approach, not the UL approach, but a truly biblical, balanced, and relevant approach. Thanks!
A message to men that lust, and women that dress provocative.
Men - Repent and get the lust out of your heart! Walk after the Spirit, and you will not fulfill the lust of the flesh. They that are Christ have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Women - Repent of that provocative spirit and get it out of your heart! Walk after the Spirit, and you will not fulfill the lust of the flesh. They that are Christ have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
Just catching up with this thread. I read the ninety and nine article this week and was offended by it. I agree with Newman and Barb who have said it better than I could say it. We all have a responsibility to God to dress modestly and decently. We all have a responsibility to God to keep our hearts pure and die daily to the flesh.
I was recently visiting LR's parents, who lives near several lakes and a couple pools. Her mother invited us to go swimming. I saw several women there and can tell you that NONE of them wore a two-piece.
Of course, I was probably the youngest chick there......I wore a two-piece....as in a t-thirt and shorts! LOL!
Even LR's mother, who weighs 84 pounds soaking wet and prides herself on her body (she is so tan she's almost black), was not in a two-piece.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
Considering there aren't many beaches in the US, I like the stats you pulled out of your head. I think you are more 'on' than not.
Most people don't live anywhere close to a beach, let alone live on one during the summer.
Furthermore, how many woman who actually do live close to the beach actually go more than once or twice a year? Most probably do for the occasional bbq or cookout, get together with family etc. AND THEY DON'T WEAR BIKINIS...
But again, there is absolutly no merit in linking women wearing bikinis, with the pants/skirt interpretaion of Deut 22:5... two completely seperate issues and can easily be dealt with seperatly on their own merits and biblical principles.
Hybrid Mode
