If you have to wear make-up to be accepted....

[KeptByTheWord]

For those interested in what chemicals might be in things you put on your skin without thinking twice: the list includes shampoos, soaps, oils, perfumes, hair sprays, moisturizer, skin creams, face creams, deodorants, and makeup products...

http://www.collective-evolution.com/...care-products/

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

For those interested in what chemicals might be in things you put on your skin without thinking twice: the list includes shampoos, soaps, oils, perfumes, hair sprays, moisturizer, skin creams, face creams, deodorants, and makeup products...

http://www.collective-evolution.com/...care-products/

Argh!!!
I am never again taking any showers, washing my hair or wear any deodorant and not shave anymore.
I am going totally Adam

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by CC1

I have no problem with a good toupee if a man wants one. The emphasis is on the word "good". I am amazed at how many older men think a jet black toupee is a good idea. It just looks like a hat on their head.

I agree that Donald Trump is NOT a good role model for what a man should do with a balding head.

Lets face it throughout time humans have looked to the female for beauty and the man for ruggedness. Modern San Francisco and a few other places being the obvious exceptions of course!

Yes, put that rug on yo head.

[Abiding Now]

Originally Posted by CC1

A woman with the proper amount of makeup properly applied looks very nice. It compliments Gods creation just like a nice dress or skirt and blouse do, shoes, scarves, etc. Same goes with jewelry. When done with modestly and moderation just part of a woman's look AND distinguishes even more between the sexes (something old time Pentecostals are supposed to be very concerned about).

I challenge anybody to show me one single New Testament scripture where Jesus and his disciples were noted for dressing differently than anybody else of their day. A dress code is certainly not what made them different.

John 19:23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.

John 19:24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by Abiding Now

John 19:23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.

John 19:24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.

That only proves that he dressed like other Galileans. In the northern portion of that country, the cloaks were made of one piece of fabric woven throughout without a seam. He was dressed as a Galilean peasant and over his garments a seamless cloak as those worn in northern Palestine.

[Abiding Now]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

That only proves that he dressed like other Galileans. In the northern portion of that country, the cloaks were made of one piece of fabric woven throughout without a seam. He was dressed as a Galilean peasant and over his garments a seamless cloak as those worn in northern Palestine.

WOW, where did you read that?

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by Abiding Now

WOW, where did you read that?

..

I have heard that taught for most all of my life. If memory serves me correctly, I was also taught this in Bible School. I also read an article on the internet that mentioned this. I will look for it again.

[votivesoul]

Wow. If a man took away everything from a woman that could potentially cause "lust"... women might as well dress like the Muslims with burqas, yet ironically... even burquas don't stop men from having problems with women.

My wife made that decision long before I ever met her. When she was a teen, in fact (with neither parental or pastoral or church input). I've never forced or reinforced the issue, but I stand by her convictions. She also sewed up her slits and started wearing 3/4 length sleeves with loose fitting clothes before we met, too.

Why? For the very reasons I've enunciated: to protect herself from being a stumblingblock to other men.

Does your wife put any kind of cream or lotion on her body? If she does, why does she do it? To make herself look better? Or, is it just part of the same hygiene ritual that includes wearing deodorant and brushing your teeth? If using cream or lotion, be aware that the cream and lotions have the same potential detrimental effects equal to or worse than makeup. Using makeup as a reason to talk about clogging the skin is simply silly. Women put all kinds of things on their body - hair spray, perfume, lotions, sun tan lotion... that all contain many of the same chemicals found in makeup.

Why wife doesn't apply cream, but does use lotion for medical reasons only (dry, sensitive skin). She only ever uses all-natural, organic products, so there aren't any of the chemicals otherwise found in such products.

As far as other products go, it's the same thing: only organic products. But she doesn't sun-bath.

And as far as clogging the pours goes, that was one minor element to the over all argument, just to show how make-up can cause the very thing make-up is used to cover up, namely acne. It was given as proof of the double-edge sword nature of the product. Nothing more. So, if a woman stopped wearing make-up, the potential for her blemishes to go away increases, thus negating the perceived need to wear make-up in the first place.

There are a whole lot worse things that a woman could do to offend someone than wearing makeup, in my opinion, but if you interpret that scripture to mean that, and believe you only need enforce it in your own family, I have no problem with that.

Of course there are worse things. I merely kept the principle to the topic at hand.

If my (fill in the blank) makes my brother or sister to offend...

We are not to use our liberty as a cover to be hurtful to others (i.e. a cloke of maliciousness). There are genuinely innocent and yet detrimental things we could do that would hurt a brother or sister's faith, especially a new covert's.

All things may be lawful but not all things are expedient. Just because we have the right, doesn't make it right. Agape love of the brethren (which proves we love God), is sacrificial in nature. It costs us something to prefer someone else's wishes and desires before our own.

That is why embracing modesty, humility, and simplicity in outward appearance, for both men and women, is the key, because by default, it becomes harder to offend or bother someone when there isn't anything offensive or bothersome in the first place.

I'll give you a perfect example: My wife's sister and husband, as licensed UPCI ministers of the Gospel, once moved to an ultra-con state that generally speaking, hated the idea of wedding rings as something sinful. So, instead of bucking the system and fighting the trend, they simply removed them from off of their hands as a sacrificial service to those brothers and sisters who might otherwise have been offended.

Legalism, perhaps on the one hand, but true Christian charity and humility on the other. It is this that I advocate. It's never about make-up, hair length, pants, beards, wedding rings, tattoos, shorts, or any other thing. We came naked into this world and we leave the same way. It's about being an unprofitable servant who cares more about the needs and well-being of others before self.

Self may want many things, even have the right to many things, but self must be denied to follow Jesus. How far are we willing to go?

[Abiding Now]

Originally Posted by Abiding Now

John 19:23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.

John 19:24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

That only proves that he dressed like other Galileans. In the northern portion of that country, the cloaks were made of one piece of fabric woven throughout without a seam. He was dressed as a Galilean peasant and over his garments a seamless cloak as those worn in northern Palestine.

Originally Posted by Abiding Now

WOW, where did you read that?

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

..

I have heard that taught for most all of my life. If memory serves me correctly, I was also taught this in Bible School. I also read an article on the internet that mentioned this. I will look for it again.

This is WHY I feel like his coat was not your normal everyday coat.

Barnes

His coat - His under garment, called the tunic.
Was without seam - Josephus (Antiq., b. 3 chapter 8, Section 4) says of the garment or coat of the high priest that “this vesture was not composed of two pieces, nor was it sewed together upon the shoulders and the sides; but it was one long vestment, so woven as to have an aperture for the neck. It was also parted where the hands were to come out.” It seems that the Lord Jesus, the great High Priest of his people, had also a coat made in a similar manner. Compare Exo_39:22.


Adam Clark

Our Lord was now in the grand office of high priest, and was about to offer the expiatory victim for the sin of the world. And it is worthy of remark that the very dress he was in was similar to that of the Jewish high priest. The following is the description given of his dress by Josephus, Ant. b. iii. c. 7, s. 4: “Now this coat (χιτων) was not composed of two pieces, nor was it sewed together upon the shoulders and sides, but it was one long vestment, so woven as to have an opening for the neck; not an oblique one, but parted all along the back and breast; it was also parted where the hands were to come out.” A little before, the same author says, that “the high priest had a long robe of a blue color, which hung down to the feet, and was put over all the rest.” It is likely that this was the same with that upper garment which the soldiers divided among them, it being probably of a costly stuff. I may just add here, that I knew a woman who knit all kinds of clothes, even to the sleeves and button holes, without a seam; and have seen some of the garments which she made; that the thing is possible I have the fullest proof. For an explanation of χιτων and ἱματιον which we translate cloak, and coat, see the note on Luk_6:29.

Gill

now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout: in such an one the Jews say (b) Moses ministered: and of this sort and make was the robe of the high priest, said to be of "woven work", Exo_28:32 upon which Jarchi remarks, ולא במחט, "and not with a needle"; it was all woven, and without any seam: and so the Jews say (c) in general of the garments of the priests:

"the garments of the priests are not made of needlework, but of woven work; as it is said, Exo_28:32. Abai says, it is not necessary (i.e. the use of the needle) but for their sleeves; according to the tradition, the sleeve of the garments of the priests is woven by itself, and is joined to the garment, and reaches to the palm of the hand.''

So that this was an entire woven garment from top to bottom, excepting the sleeves, which were wove separately and sewed to it; of this kind also was his coat, which Jacob Iehudah Leon says (d),

"was a stately woollen coat of a sky colour, wholly woven, all of one piece, without seam, without sleeves;''

such a garment Christ our great High Priest wore, which had no seam in it, but was a curious piece of texture from top to bottom. The very learned Braunius (e) says, he has seen such garments in Holland, and has given fine cuts of them, and also of the frame in which they are wrought. What authority Nonnus had to call this coat a black one, or others for saying it was the work of the Virgin Mary, I know not.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

My wife made that decision long before I ever met her. When she was a teen, in fact (with neither parental or pastoral or church input). I've never forced or reinforced the issue, but I stand by her convictions. She also sewed up her slits and started wearing 3/4 length sleeves with loose fitting clothes before we met, too.

Why? For the very reasons I've enunciated: to protect herself from being a stumblingblock to other men.



Why wife doesn't apply cream, but does use lotion for medical reasons only (dry, sensitive skin). She only ever uses all-natural, organic products, so there aren't any of the chemicals otherwise found in such products.

As far as other products go, it's the same thing: only organic products. But she doesn't sun-bath.

And as far as clogging the pours goes, that was one minor element to the over all argument, just to show how make-up can cause the very thing make-up is used to cover up, namely acne. It was given as proof of the double-edge sword nature of the product. Nothing more. So, if a woman stopped wearing make-up, the potential for her blemishes to go away increases, thus negating the perceived need to wear make-up in the first place.



Of course there are worse things. I merely kept the principle to the topic at hand.

If my (fill in the blank) makes my brother or sister to offend...

We are not to use our liberty as a cover to be hurtful to others (i.e. a cloke of maliciousness). There are genuinely innocent and yet detrimental things we could do that would hurt a brother or sister's faith, especially a new covert's.

All things may be lawful but not all things are expedient. Just because we have the right, doesn't make it right. Agape love of the brethren (which proves we love God), is sacrificial in nature. It costs us something to prefer someone else's wishes and desires before our own.

That is why embracing modesty, humility, and simplicity in outward appearance, for both men and women, is the key, because by default, it becomes harder to offend or bother someone when there isn't anything offensive or bothersome in the first place.

I'll give you a perfect example: My wife's sister and husband, as licensed UPCI ministers of the Gospel, once moved to an ultra-con state that generally speaking, hated the idea of wedding rings as something sinful. So, instead of bucking the system and fighting the trend, they simply removed them from off of their hands as a sacrificial service to those brothers and sisters who might otherwise have been offended.

Legalism, perhaps on the one hand, but true Christian charity and humility on the other. It is this that I advocate. It's never about make-up, hair length, pants, beards, wedding rings, tattoos, shorts, or any other thing. We came naked into this world and we leave the same way. It's about being an unprofitable servant who cares more about the needs and well-being of others before self.

Self may want many things, even have the right to many things, but self must be denied to follow Jesus. How far are we willing to go?

Excellent.