My Name is on www.wedeclare.org

[Papabear]

I see our fellow card carring UPCI pastor has wrote a scathing opinion of us.

I am one of the two founders of Wordshare.us

In relationship to www.wedeclare.org

I would like to claim the ownership of the desire, design and intent of the site, we were invited to the party.

A very good friend of mine invited us to the party.

Our intent was simply to state that we believe the UPC needs to stay a holiness movement. This accusation of power, fame and money hunger is unfounded.

I just wanted to post my awareness of our condemnation. I don't expect this site to like our website. I don't expect you to respect us on any level.

Our intent is for the UPC to remain an organization made of Churches and Ministry that maintains our traditional holiness stands.

Of course that makes us mean, evil, tyrants.

And of course that is what it has to be.

Why would anyone stay in the UPC if they so hate, defame and denigrate the very essense of what the UPC is.

In addition, these things are your Mothers, Grandmothers, and the very image of people who have done so many wonderful things.

Thanks Ed. Thanks AFF for being true to yourselves.


How Important is Holiness?

www.fullproof.us

[StillStanding]

Originally Posted by Papabear

....
Why would anyone stay in the UPC if they so hate, defame and denigrate the very essense of what the UPC is.

.....

The very essence of the UPC is their cultural "look"?

I thought the essence of the UPC from the beginning in 1945 was:

1. Oneness doctrine
2. Baptism in Jesus name
3. Baptism of the Holy Ghost evidenced by tongues
4. Unity

[Pressing-On]

Could you please explain the "principle" behind Deut 22:5?

I am reading the passage and noticing that it is an abomination for a man to put on a woman's garment.

It has always been an oddity in society for a man to dress as a woman. He, normally, tends to be a homosexual.

If it is an oddity and an abomination for a man to wear a woman's garment in Deut 22:5, I have to think, to stay in context, that the women in that passage, on wearing a man's apparel, is in that same frame of mind.

What, therefore, would be the "principle" without taking the passage out of context? Is the principle that either gender will lead to homosexuality? Further the homosexual mentality? Because I think that before they changed wardrobes, something was going on in the heart. The wardrobe was only the outer expression of what was going on in the heart, IMO.

Perhaps you could explain that further.

[Subdued]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Could you please explain the "principle" behind Deut 22:5?

I am reading the passage and noticing that it is an abomination for a man to put on a woman's garment.

It has always been an oddity in society for a man to dress as a woman. He, normally, tends to be a homosexual.

If it is an oddity and an abomination for a man to wear a woman's garment in Deut 22:5, I have to think, to stay in context, that the women in that passage, on wearing a man's apparel, is in that same frame of mind.

What, therefore, would be the "principle" without taking the passage out of context? Is the principle that either gender will lead to homosexuality? Further the homosexual mentality? Because I think that before they changed wardrobes, something was going on in the heart. The wardrobe was only the outer expression of what was going on in the heart, IMO.

Perhaps you could explain that further.

Deu 22:5 The woman shall not exist as/become/be that which pertaineth unto a valiant man or warrior, neither shall a valiant man or warrior put on a woman's cover, assuming the shape of the object beneath (to resemble; a likeness) all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Deu 22:5 There shall not be the thing of a man on a woman, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment. For whoever does these things is an abomination to Jehovah your God.

Deu 22:5 Women must not pretend to be men, and men must not pretend to be women. The LORD your God is disgusted with people who do that.

Deu 22:5 The habiliments (or the special dress or garb associated with an occasion) (or office or characteristic furnishings or equipment) of a man are not on a woman, nor doth a man put on the garment of a woman, for the abomination of Jehovah thy God is any one doing these.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Subdued

I think the following describes how we need to need to live in order to "be separate."

1 Thessalonians 4:1-12 (KJV)

1Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.
2For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.
3For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:
4That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;
5Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:
6That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.
7For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.
8He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.
9But as touching brotherly love ye need not that I write unto you: for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another.
10And indeed ye do it toward all the brethren which are in all Macedonia: but we beseech you, brethren, that ye increase more and more;
11And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;
12 That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing.

Also:

Galatians 5:19-23 (KJV)

19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Originally Posted by Subdued

Deu 22:5 The woman shall not exist as/become/be that which pertaineth unto a valiant man or warrior, neither shall a valiant man or warrior put on a woman's cover, assuming the shape of the object beneath (to resemble; a likeness) all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Deu 22:5 There shall not be the thing of a man on a woman, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment. For whoever does these things is an abomination to Jehovah your God.

Deu 22:5 Women must not pretend to be men, and men must not pretend to be women. The LORD your God is disgusted with people who do that.

Deu 22:5 The habiliments (or the special dress or garb associated with an occasion) (or office or characteristic furnishings or equipment) of a man are not on a woman, nor doth a man put on the garment of a woman, for the abomination of Jehovah thy God is any one doing these.

Thanks, Subby! I am all for discussing scripture () but I'm not going to get into bashing people and organizations. It borders on sounding like hysterical ranting.

Perhaps, Coonskinner, since he is listed as one of the Who We Are under the Declaration, could explain his thoughts on Deut 22:5 in the context of the passage. I'm thinking he would have also had a hand in the constructional wording of the Declaration to be listed as such.

I am not understanding the "principle" and I would like to understand that. I am also very certain he would never call me "swine". I'm very certain of that.

I'm not here to argue either. I would just like someone, for once, to make some sense out of that passage. As I've said before, I Tim 2:9 would make much more sense to use as a particular "cultural" clothing stance for women not wearing pants, if they wanted to, than Deut 22:5 would be.

I already know what I believe. I would like someone to show me what I am missing and where I may possibly be mistaken. Because if I have truth, I will preach that until I die.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I'm not here to argue either. I would just like someone, for once, to make some sense out of that passage. As I've said before, I Tim 2:9 would make much more sense to use as a particular "cultural" clothing stance for women not wearing pants, if they wanted to, than Deut 22:5 would be.

When I was a kid, when I asked why our women didn't wear pants, I was told that it was because of modesty. That women were more modest in dresses. I didn't hear the Deut. thing until I was much older.

[Sam]

OK, let's make it simple:

1. Du 22:5 says men are not supposed to wear women's clothes and women aren't supposed to wear men's clothes.

2. During the nineteen forties in the United States, women often wore skirts and dresses and men wore pants.

3. Therefore Du 22:5 (written a couple thousand years before Christ and when men and women didn't wear pants) means men can't wear dresses and women can't wear bifurcated garments (pantyhose is considered an exception in some cases).

It's really pretty simple, isn't it?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

When I was a kid, when I asked why our women didn't wear pants, I was told that it was because of modesty. That women were more modest in dresses. I didn't hear the Deut. thing until I was much older.

I grew up in the Catholic Church, so yes we thought it was more modest, until we had to ride horses. lol I think when I got in church I was aware of Deut 22:5. I just wondered if the Word was so adamant about the man not dressing like a woman, it spoke to me of personal issues of the heart and so I couldn't reconcile the women and pants thing as being a normal directive. I thought she had to have personal heart issues as well.

But, I will be honest, I don't like pants, never have liked them and I don't think they are feminine. I've never seen any that were and that's just my opinion.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Thanks, Subby! I am all for discussing scripture () but I'm not going to get into bashing people and organizations. It borders on sounding like hysterical ranting.

Perhaps, Coonskinner, since he is listed as one of the Who We Are under the Declaration, could explain his thoughts on Deut 22:5 in the context of the passage. I'm thinking he would have also had a hand in the constructional wording of the Declaration to be listed as such.

I am not understanding the "principle" and I would like to understand that. I am also very certain he would never call me "swine". I'm very certain of that.

I'm not here to argue either. I would just like someone, for once, to make some sense out of that passage. As I've said before, I Tim 2:9 would make much more sense to use as a particular "cultural" clothing stance for women not wearing pants, if they wanted to, than Deut 22:5 would be.

I already know what I believe. I would like someone to show me what I am missing and where I may possibly be mistaken. Because if I have truth, I will preach that until I die.

Bump for maybe a response!

[Papabear]

5. Holiness

It has always been a part and parcel of our essence. Not exclusive to, but it has been our identity.