Cosmetics???

[*AQuietPlace*]

They also used to preach against sheer pantyhose..... then switched and preached against colored pantyhose.... which always puzzled me!

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I bet he called her Pooky!

I was hoping they called her Keren!

[ILG]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I bet he called her Pooky!

Yeah, or maybe just Karen.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

No. My question is spot on.
You're just running away from giving a straight [biblical] answer.

Many churches have rules against cosmetics. So it's a fair question to ask "what scripture is that based on?" . Therefore I asked you the question. Maybe you know you have no scriptural answer, so you're dodging the question a bit?

Secondly, your argument that cosmetics is not "beneficial to soul winning" is immaterial to the issue at hand.
I wear cuff links. I dont believe cufflinks are particularly "beneficial to soul winning" , nor do I see where they're not.

Some women wear high heels, and hatpins, or curl their hair; some men wear bight colored suits, wear goatees or long sideburns, etc etc. I dont see that any of these things are specifically "beneficial to soul winning", nor do I see that they're NOT. But that doesnt mean I should go preaching against them as being sin! If I were to preach against them, I should be prepared with some bible if someone asked me on what basis I'm preaching those things as being sin.

Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong on this.
These are the top 4 scriptures I've found, that teach that God considers to be wrong:

1.
2.
3.
4.

If you have any others you want to add the list, feel free, my brother.

No scripture?

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by coadie

No scripture?

Coadie, dont twist it.
I'd hate to think that you're being intellectually dishonest here.

Let's go back to basics for a minute here. I asked you if you had any scripture to teach that cosmetics is wrong. You havent responded with any. I presume that's because you know there aren't any.

(If you're teaching that something is wrong, you should have biblical grounds for that teaching.... and in this case you have none, and you know it.)

So that pretty much sums it up.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by coadie

No scripture

Glad you've admitted that there is no scripture to back the no cosmetics.

I think someone is either messing with us or is intimidated.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Coadie, dont twist it.
I'd hate to think that you're being intellectually dishonest here.

Let's go back to basics for a minute here. I asked you if you had any scripture to teach that cosmetics is wrong. You havent responded with any. I presume that's because you know there aren't any.

(If you're teaching that something is wrong, you should have biblical grounds for that teaching.... and in this case you have none, and you know it.)

So that pretty much sums it up.

Lack of response means lack of a response.
It is wild how some folks project answers to a non response.

I often ignore folks that hate to think and admit it.




Not everything that the world offers-physical gratification, greed, and extravagant lifestyles-comes from the Father. It comes from the world, and

King James Bible
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

In outpatient counseling we deal with distorted and inaccurate introspection methodologies.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by coadie

Lack of response means lack of a response.
It is wild how some folks project answers to a non response.

I often ignore folks that hate to think and admit it.




Not everything that the world offers-physical gratification, greed, and extravagant lifestyles-comes from the Father. It comes from the world, and

King James Bible
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

In outpatient counseling we deal with distorted and inaccurate introspection methodologies.

Lack of response makes it appear that you have NO response.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Glad you've admitted that there is no scripture to back the no cosmetics.

I think someone is either messing with us or is intimidated.

Yawn...
RG, wake me up when Coadie gives us some scripture for this.

Until then, it's a wrap.

(Of course, I'm sure if he really had such scriptures, instead of his man-made reasoning, he would have given them to us already.)

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Lack of response makes it appear that you have NO response.

Oooh!
RG with a sharp uppercut to the jaw!