Holiness Is Still Important

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by proudfather

I completely agree with you here. We should be consistent in all matters of holiness and separation. I will say though that the liberal should also be consistent in their theology. If women don't have to dress modestly, then why couldn't a woman walk into a liberal church with a bikini on? If TV and Hollywood are okay, then a person should be allowed to subscribe to Playboy magazine. I've never owned one, but I've been told by worldly people that this magazine contains many good articles. Where do you draw the line? Should we be allowed to go to Las Vegas because we might be able to find good food and fellowship? If we simply tell people to live holy, without setting up any landmarks, then one person might think it's okay to drink beer, another might not see anything wrong with drugs.

BTW, don't misunderstand me...I don't even know you so I can't call you a liberal. You seem nice enough. I'm just asking some honest questions.

This is an excellent post because the questions you raise shine the spotlight and reveal the problems with legalism. When you do things based specifically on man-made boundaries there will always be loopholes and ways to get around them. You imply that allowing someone to drink beer means they might as well be allowed to do drugs, thus we shouldn't allow alcohol of any kind. Again, I am reading into the statement. The correct premise in this case should be one of moderation and avoiding drunkenness, thus we avoid ALL of the "but why can't we do this if we can do THIS" or "why are we allowed to do this if we can't do that?" questions that arise from the ever growing rule book created to handle every possible situation we may encounter in life (which cannot be done). And by the way Jesus MADE wine and by all accounts the people He made it for were probably pretty "happy" since it was a multi-day celebration.
Same with the statement about bikin's and wearing them into church.

[allstate1]

Originally Posted by proudfather

I completely agree with you here. We should be consistent in all matters of holiness and separation. I will say though that the liberal should also be consistent in their theology. If women don't have to dress modestly, then why couldn't a woman walk into a liberal church with a bikini on? If TV and Hollywood are okay, then a person should be allowed to subscribe to Playboy magazine. I've never owned one, but I've been told by worldly people that this magazine contains many good articles. Where do you draw the line? Should we be allowed to go to Las Vegas because we might be able to find good food and fellowship? If we simply tell people to live holy, without setting up any landmarks, then one person might think it's okay to drink beer, another might not see anything wrong with drugs.

BTW, don't misunderstand me...I don't even know you so I can't call you a liberal. You seem nice enough. I'm just asking some honest questions.

Your analogies are silly. A bikini would not be allowed even in Wal-Mart, TV and Hollywood are not porn! It seems to me as if your opinion is if there can not be definite landmarks as you call them then we will just cover evreything as a sin! Are you old enough to remember when caffiene was a sin?? In your words if it was a sin 30 or 60 years ago its still a sin!

[POWERUP]

I was starting to like proudfather till that last post. Just plain silly!!!! Thats as bad
as saying, even the Baptist have had standards!! And.................The point is........
pointless!!

He's got to be pretty young if you ask me............I'm just saying...........Sounds
like he is talking in parables.

[proudfather]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

Why do you assume that liberals believe women shouldn't dress modestly? You'd consider me a liberal, and I definitely believe in dressing modestly.

Please define modesty. What if someone else's definition of modesty includes bikini's in church? At least they're not naked.



It's possible to view television, know which show you're going to click on, watch only that show, and not view filth. It's not possible to flip through Playboy and not see the pictures. Apples and oranges.


I disagree. Can you honestly tell me that you have NEVER seen anything ungodly on TV? Can you say that you NEVER hear cussing or dirty comments? What about movies? Should we just go all out and watch R rated films? Top Gun was rated PG and it contained lots of cussing and a sex scene. Where do we draw the line?



Why do you think it's up to you to set guidelines for other people? Why do they need the Holy Ghost if you're going to do all of their thinking and guiding for them? I don't feel the need to tell people what holy is, I let God do that for them.

And I don't mean that snarkily, it's simply the way I view the issue.

Are you serious about letting people define their own standards? Yikes...I hope I'm misunderstanding you. If that's what you meant then...I have nothing else to say.

[proudfather]

Originally Posted by allstate1

Your analogies are silly. A bikini would not be allowed even in Wal-Mart, TV and Hollywood are not porn! It seems to me as if your opinion is if there can not be definite landmarks as you call them then we will just cover evreything as a sin! Are you old enough to remember when caffiene was a sin?? In your words if it was a sin 30 or 60 years ago its still a sin!

I don't remember when caffine was a sin. I never heard anybody preach against it. However, I do believe that we cons. have stepped out in the past and said some really stupid things. We've had to back off of some of those issues, because of natural progression. Television, is not included in this because it has only gotten worse throughout the years. I can't wait to see people's resonses to this one.

And we're off...

[*AQuietPlace*]

Please define modesty. What if someone else's definition of modesty includes bikini's in church? At least they're not naked.

Any time this subject comes up, someone immediately jumps to the extreme and brings up a bikini in church.

I am a member of another forum that is not a "Christian" forum, although many of the members are Christians, I suppose. They definitely aren't Pentecostal, though. The discussion of appropriate clothing, and modesty, comes up frequently. You'd be surprised by how modest most of them are. Good ol' common sense is a great treasure, and more people have it than you'd give them credit for.

"Baptists" don't hold to the Pentecostal dress code, but surprise, surprise - none of them think a bikini is appropriate for church either.

I disagree. Can you honestly tell me that you have NEVER seen anything ungodly on TV? Can you say that you NEVER hear cussing or dirty comments? What about movies? Should we just go all out and watch R rated films? Top Gun was rated PG and it contained lots of cussing and a sex scene. Where do we draw the line?

I've never seen anything on the level of Playboy on tv. I don't watch shows like that. We draw the line where we feel we should draw the line. That line is going to vary for everyone, just like it varies on books we read, talk shows we listen to, restaurants we frequent, malls we browse, etc. Do you never come across a curse word in a book, or while listening to a talk show?

Are you serious about letting people define their own standards? Yikes...I hope I'm misunderstanding you. If that's what you meant then...I have nothing else to say.

I'm serious, so I guess you'll have nothing else to say. What gives me the right to set standards for you? You answer to God, not me.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

come on Blume the foundational aspect of the whole is understood as covered and uncovered. You ignore the words context by doing such which is based on uncovered and covered. Want to argue against uncut fine but don't use that noncontextual agrument that defines the parameters.

I do not know what you are making an issue with here. I compared verse 15 and 15. The issue is "HAVE LONG HAIR" cannot change definitions form one verse to the next. And I am basing my argument upon people's faulty beliefs that the issue is hair.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by proudfather

Hmmm...interesting. So now we have reduced ourselves to picking on someone's age.

1 Timothy 4:12 (King James Version)

12Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

If you were referring to my post, I was not picking on your age, I was stating a fact. 25 is not old. Neither is long something that means uncut. I am 48. I do not think THAT is old. It had nothing to do with picking on your age, brother. lol It's a contrast I was making.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by proudfather

I completely agree with you here. We should be consistent in all matters of holiness and separation. I will say though that the liberal should also be consistent in their theology. If women don't have to dress modestly, then why couldn't a woman walk into a liberal church with a bikini on? If TV and Hollywood are okay, then a person should be allowed to subscribe to Playboy magazine. I've never owned one, but I've been told by worldly people that this magazine contains many good articles. Where do you draw the line? Should we be allowed to go to Las Vegas because we might be able to find good food and fellowship? If we simply tell people to live holy, without setting up any landmarks, then one person might think it's okay to drink beer, another might not see anything wrong with drugs.

BTW, don't misunderstand me...I don't even know you so I can't call you a liberal. You seem nice enough. I'm just asking some honest questions.

Having a difference of opinion over what constitutes "modesty" isn't the same thing as having "no modesty at all."

If someone thinks that the seventh commandment ("Thou shalt not kill") doesn't apply in matters of self defense do we suspect that individual of murdering innocent children with a chain saw?

That's what your post leads to.

Just because you're wrong about standards of modesty doesn't mean that other people have no standards.

[proudfather]

Originally Posted by mfblume

If you were referring to my post, I was not picking on your age, I was stating a fact. 25 is not old. Neither is long something that means uncut. I am 48. I do not think THAT is old. It had nothing to do with picking on your age, brother. lol It's a contrast I was making.

I did not find your post offensive. The post before yours was a little more forceful and struck me as rude.

In response to your question, let's examine the words more closely:

The word "cover" in Verses 4-7 = "Katakalupto" - it means = "to veil, wholly cover"

The word cover in VS 15 = "Peribolaion" - it means = "to throw around" - also: "veil or mantle"

Katakalupto is a derivative of the root work "Kata" a preposition meaning = "down from, to cover or hide"

Zondervan Bible Dictionary noted that in the N.T., hair was a major distinguishing factor of the sexes.

PAUL WAS ANSWERING the CORINTH CUSTOM => He was not suggesting a break from that custom. In Corinth, to be without a veil would be a shame, therefore, if you’re not wearing one, then you might as well cut your hair also. (because in Corinth it would have the same effect)

SHAVEN: "to cut near the surface" make bare, smooth
SHORN: "to cut with shears" to remove by cutting

Study the issue of short hair in the old testament and you will find that on a woman, it was considered shameful.

Judgment begins at God’s house... (conversion) This issue is not "how long" her hair is, but that she simply stop cutting it. In I Cor 11, the issue was never if a woman should have long hair. (that was a given) It was if Corinthian women had to wear a 2nd covering.

Hope this helps.