HMD, Coon & DKB recognize past failures - Page 4

jfrog · #31 08-10-2010, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeatlast

This is so ignorant is luaghable, and it is a practice of a church I used to attend.

IF the garment of a man ( in this case jeans or snowpants) is an abomination for a women to wear , how does putting a dress over it unabominate the article of clothing.

This thinking is beyond ignorant.

Technically, since they are wearing the garment in a different way than men do then it could be argued that makes it no longer an abomination.

DAII · #32 08-10-2010, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

Technically, since they are wearing the garment in a different way than men do then it could be argued that makes it no longer an abomination.

So if the pants are worn inside out ... that would constitute gender distinction ... huh, you're on to something.

freeatlast · #33 08-10-2010, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

Technically, since they are wearing the garment in a different way than men do then it could be argued that makes it no longer an abomination.

Still wearing that which pertaineth to the man.

Don't get me wrong here...I do not endorse in any way the apostolics intrepretation of Dt 22:5

It is in no way refering to a women wearing a pair of pants in our culture.

I'm just saying IF you really believe it forbids wearing slacks by women then HOW can they think it's OK to to wear if coverd by a dress??

ILG · #34 08-10-2010, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAII

The church made it but did you guys?

Coon said that their research showed that many, if not most, of these men leave the fellowship.

And the question is why???? ... is it because of ideology or is it disillusionment of promises not fulfilled or both?

Well... we didn't stay in the UPC, no. We left because of ideology. But there was great disillusionment and many, many promises that were left unfulfilled. Unfortunately, they couldn't make us leave because of that. Too bad though, or it would have saved us a lot of pain and heartache.

ILG · #35 08-10-2010, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geekette

Why, holiness standards are only for Jezebels like me that need rules and guidance! Men know how to dress properly.

No matter that the standards also serve as a way to limit a woman's literal freedom of movement. I still can't get over a sister in the church I went to who wore jeans under her skirt so she could go horseback riding or the ladies up in Alaska who wore snow pants under their skirts so they wouldn't freeze.

I've studied (informally) cross-cultural religious expression and have come to the conclusion that in more conservative expressions of various religious belief systems, women are more limited and have more rules than men in matters of dress.

*shrug* It becomes a problem for me when it's made a matter of "holiness or hell." Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

Exactly.

jfrog · #36 08-10-2010, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeatlast

Still wearing that which pertaineth to the man.

Don't get me wrong here...I do not endorse in any way the apostolics intrepretation of Dt 22:5

It is in no way refering to a women wearing a pair of pants in our culture.

I'm just saying IF you really believe it forbids wearing slacks by women then HOW can they think it's OK to to wear if coverd by a dress??

That which pertains to a man is pants without a skirt on over them. That which pertains to a woman is a skirt with or without pants on under them. It's easy enough to explain it this way. It doesn't have to be about believing it forbids slacks on a woman, but instead it can be that it forbids a woman from only wearing slacks with no skirt on over them.

jfrog · #37 08-10-2010, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfrog

That which pertains to a man is pants without a skirt on over them. That which pertains to a woman is a skirt with or without pants on under them. It's easy enough to explain it this way. It doesn't have to be about believing it forbids slacks on a woman, but instead it can be that it forbids a woman from only wearing slacks with no skirt on over them.

That being said I believe the verse allows for women to wear pants. I'm just saying there is nothing inherently hypocritical about women wearing slacks with a skirt on over them.

jfrog · #38 08-10-2010, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daii

so if the pants are worn inside out ... That would constitute gender distinction ... Huh, you're on to something.

yes!

Maximilian · #39 08-10-2010, 10:55 AM

"Daughter works" have unfortunately been synonymous with possessive, controlling, power-hunger "mama churches." Most daughter churches I know of lived in the shadows of the "mama church" and always carried that stigma and complex.

DAII · #40 08-10-2010, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maximilian

"Daughter works" have unfortunately been synonymous with possessive, controlling, power-hunger "mama churches." Most daughter churches I know of lived in the shadows of the "mama church" and always carried that stigma and complex.

For many Spanish pastors (friends) it's been disastrous ... LOTS OF PROMISES ....

in the end, the mother church takes all of the income, then redistributes... sometimes giving a pittance as salary and the moment the church wants to go autonomous ... the "monster" comes out. Even when the pastor was promised autonomy after certain goals or benchmarks were met .... they seem to be running on a perpetual treadmill to nowhere.

Many times these issues are then brought to district boards ... only thing is ... the seasoned pastor often sits on the board ... or wields influence among his peers.

I encourage all of them to get it down on paper contractually ... no matter the relationship.