Holiness Is Still Important - Page 24

POWERUP · #**231** 05-26-2010, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

Lol. He wasn't side-stepping the makeup question. It's been discussed extensively around here.

(it struck me funny recently when watching an old episode of Gunsmoke that it was the "harlots" that wore big, huge feathers in their hair, and had the fancy, curly hairdos.

)

I'm Just Saying....................

Justin · #**232** 05-26-2010, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

Lol. He wasn't side-stepping the makeup question. It's been discussed extensively around here.

(it struck me funny recently when watching an old episode of Gunsmoke that it was the "harlots" that wore big, huge feathers in their hair, and had the fancy, curly hairdos.

)

Quote:

Originally Posted by proudfather

You didn't answer my question about make up. Nice side step. Culture and context are important, but was Paul addressing women that had shaved their head because of their culture? He wasn't just speaking to Jewish people you know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by POWERUP

I'm Just Saying....................

I thought your question was tongue-in-cheek. I do not think it is a sin to wear make up any more than it would be a sin to wear red or fix up your hair:

Jeremiah 4:30, 2 Kings 9:30.

God was always angry with their intent; their haughty attitudes.

Also, feel free to use the smilies on the side to indicate with you are joking. Sarcasm is hard to read via internet.

*AQuietPlace* · #**233** 05-26-2010, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by proudfather

At this point I am the only cons. in this discussion. Either the other cons. have better things to do, or their too scared to say anything. I have done my best to answer questions, but so many are coming in at this point that I can't keep up with them. No wonder other cons. have left this forum. I will stick around, and hopefully my next post will be a little more popular. Someone has to close this discussion so I will bow out gracefully. While I could answer all of the questions posted, I don't really see the point. We've all made up our minds about what we believe. Thanks for the debate though. It was fun.

proudfather · #**234** 05-26-2010, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin

I thought your question was tongue-in-cheek. I do not think it is a sin to wear make up any more than it would be a sin to wear red or fix up your hair:

Jeremiah 4:30, 2 Kings 9:30.

God was always angry with their intent; their haughty attitudes.

Also, feel free to use the smilies on the side to indicate with you are joking. Sarcasm is hard to read via internet.

You are correct about the smiles. Sorry about that.

mfblume · #**235** 05-26-2010, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by proudfather

At this point I am the only cons. in this discussion. Either the other cons. have better things to do, or their too scared to say anything. I have done my best to answer questions, but so many are coming in at this point that I can't keep up with them. No wonder other cons. have left this forum. I will stick around, and hopefully my next post will be a little more popular. Someone has to close this discussion so I will bow out gracefully. While I could answer all of the questions posted, I don't really see the point. We've all made up our minds about what we believe. Thanks for the debate though. It was fun.

If you can actually follow this line of thought and still believe LONG is UNCUT, then more power to ya!

If HAVE LONG HAIR in verse 14 is to remain with the same definition it has in verse 15, then a man cannot have "A" while a woman must have "A". "A" must be consistent in definition. Paul did not say it is a shame for a man to have "A", but if a woman has "B" it is a glory to her. HAVE LONG HAIR means the same thing for a man that it means for a woman.

That being the case, if LONG = UNCUT then a man does not "have long hair" if it is three feet down his back and he keeps it trimmed. It is not UNCUT.

edjen01 · #**236** 05-26-2010, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by proudfather

At this point I am the only cons. in this discussion. Either the other cons. have better things to do, or their too scared to say anything. I have done my best to answer questions, but so many are coming in at this point that I can't keep up with them. No wonder other cons. have left this forum. I will stick around, and hopefully my next post will be a little more popular. Someone has to close this discussion so I will bow out gracefully. While I could answer all of the questions posted, I don't really see the point. We've all made up our minds about what we believe. Thanks for the debate though. It was fun.

its has been fun...and i do hope you join in more discussions. it takes many perspectives to get a balanced view.

Keep seeking truth!!

StillStanding · #**237** 05-26-2010, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

yeah.... do a little search on this. He is correct. I am not talking about standards but the mentality behind law and faithfulness. He is a softie... hard to lose your salvation and all.

That's right! A good holiness preacher preaches it HARD! Don't let 'em off easy - put 'em in Hell!

pelathais · #**238** 05-26-2010, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timmy

Even today, there is more than one canon in use by different segments of the church. (Assuming one allows all the segments that call themselves the church or part of the church to be segments of the church.)

Not really... except for the isolated Ethiopian Coptic church. The Roman Catholic Church accepts portions of the OT Apocrypha as canonical but not at the same level as the books which had "full assent" since the First Century. They recognize the historic uncertainty of this works. The fact that even the Protestant reformers behind the KJV still held a high regard for this same material and included it in the KJV shows the depths of those feelings.

Accepting uncertainty is a primary element of faith. There is uncertainty about portions of the Apocrypha. There are even more element of uncertainty about our faith. Only fundamentalists and atheists will assert absolute certainty... "birds of a feather..."

pelathais · #**239** 05-26-2010, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by allstate1

Ok please tell me what a harlot looks like! I mean can you pick one out at the mall?!

What kind of mall do you have in your town?

edjen01 · #**240** 05-26-2010, 10:51 AM

[QUOTE=pelathais;916730]Not really... except for the isolated Ethiopian Coptic church. The Roman Catholic Church accepts portions of the OT Apocrypha as canonical but not at the same level as the books which had "full assent" since the First Century. They recognize the historic uncertainty of this works. The fact that even the Protestant reformers behind the KJV still held a high regard for this same material and included it in the KJV shows the depths of those feelings.

Accepting uncertainty is a primary element of faith. There is uncertainty about portions of the Apocrypha. There are even more element of uncertainty about our faith. Only fundamentalists and atheists will assert absolute certainty... "birds of a feather..."[/QUOTE]

now thats funny!!