eurp
Senior Member
Posts: 290
|
Post by eurp on May 30, 2006 15:47:39 GMT -5
BC: I saw a picture from there, with 2 female workers wearing trousers. Is that common?
|
|
|
Post by gift on May 30, 2006 15:52:33 GMT -5
BC: I saw a picture from there, with 2 female workers wearing trousers. Is that common? what were they doing? were they at convention or something?
|
|
eurp
Senior Member
Posts: 290
|
Post by eurp on May 30, 2006 15:54:03 GMT -5
They were at a picnic, in a three legged race.
|
|
|
Post by gift on May 30, 2006 15:57:15 GMT -5
They were at a picnic, in a three legged race. I understand. I to have seen sister workers in pants, many of times.
|
|
eurp
Senior Member
Posts: 290
|
Post by eurp on May 30, 2006 16:00:55 GMT -5
You'll note , Gift, that I did not say that all, or even many, female workers wear trousers.
|
|
|
Post by gift on May 30, 2006 16:08:41 GMT -5
You'll note , Gift, that I did not say that all, or even many, female workers wear trousers. why are you pointing this out to me?
|
|
BC
Senior Member
Posts: 852
|
Post by BC on May 30, 2006 16:21:46 GMT -5
BC: I saw a picture from there, with 2 female workers wearing trousers. Is that common? Hi eurp, No it is not common but it does Happen occasionally as the situation dictates. [shadow=red,left,300]Regards BC[/shadow]
|
|
|
Post by feliz on May 31, 2006 7:23:16 GMT -5
I wonder if girls wearing dresses is a condition for baptism? In 2006? I assume the workers would allow a girl to "take part" in meeting if she wears jeans. They frown on it but tolerate it. IMHO.
|
|
eurp
Senior Member
Posts: 290
|
Post by eurp on May 31, 2006 7:30:22 GMT -5
Gift asked "why are you pointing this out to me?"
Because I felt that what I said could have been misunderstood.
|
|
|
Post by amazed on May 31, 2006 9:30:49 GMT -5
You americans amaze me. Becasue you have got some twisted workers, who insist on a certain dress code, you want the rest of the world (the majority) to think that your rules apply everywhere, and then blame others. I think your anti-american prejudice is showing. Thinking that the rules apply to the rest of the world has nothing to do with us being American! It's what we have been told by the workers and our parents for our entire lives! "The "truth" is the same everywhere," we have been told. Are we supposed to say...."just because you (worker or parent) say it's this way, it really can't be. I'm sure that the rest of the people in the "truth" are wearing pants all over the world"? That's crazy. Didn't you grow up believing what your parents and other "authority" figures told you was true? When you have been told something over and over and it is labeled as fact, who are you to doubt it. If you haven't had the privilege of traveling all over the world to check it out for yourself you are going to believe it until proven otherwise. Take off your anti-american glasses and think like a human.
|
|
eurp
Senior Member
Posts: 290
|
Post by eurp on May 31, 2006 11:14:38 GMT -5
amazed I apologise for appearing to have an anti american bias.
The problemis as you hint at - that in USA people were told some things that were not told to the majority in other countries. I'm not certain why that was, but it seems to have stemmed from about WW2 time. It relates to historical matters, some doctrinal matters and some matters of authority.
|
|
|
Post by amazed on Jun 1, 2006 18:25:38 GMT -5
Thank you. That means a lot. Forgive me for being a little defensive.
|
|
|
Post by withopeneyes (Mandy) on Jun 1, 2006 20:01:21 GMT -5
When my husband and I were baptised, one of my friends told me I would have to do away with the tv. We didn't.
If anyone tells me that I can't "partake" because I wear pants and own a television, then they need to research a baptism a little further.
|
|
|
Post by prue on Jun 2, 2006 2:45:11 GMT -5
Hi "withopeneyes" The issue of TV is not meant to be some symbol of the church. The issue of TV is about changing appetites. Bert
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Jun 2, 2006 5:42:09 GMT -5
amazed I apologise for appearing to have an anti american bias. The problemis as you hint at - that in USA people were told some things that were not told to the majority in other countries. I'm not certain why that was, but it seems to have stemmed from about WW2 time. It relates to historical matters, some doctrinal matters and some matters of authority. From what I understand, the first generation of the church born into the church believed the way had always been. The original converts new of the coming from Ireland. They apparently remained silent and let the delusion continue.
|
|
|
Post by hi6 on Jun 2, 2006 7:34:35 GMT -5
Workers didn't invent the dress code! They just kept up the traditions of early Ireland circa 1890s-1900s!
Eurp, I am sure a professing girl in Australia wouldn't wear jeans around Peter Morrison, the late Evan Jones, Fred Allen, Leslie Doecke, Ray Cruickshank, Colin MCKay and others. Nope.
Aussies can drink booze and own Christmas trees, I am told.
|
|
faith
Junior Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by faith on Jun 2, 2006 7:59:29 GMT -5
hi6, you're right - Australian professing girls (or ladies) would not wear jeans around the workers, especially the older workers.
We do have christmas trees, but booze is generally frowned upon. We were told by the elder worker not even to go to licensed restraurants (or any other place where alcahol is served). Anyway most places are BYO and a drop of wine is good for the stomach!!
|
|
|
Post by prue on Jun 2, 2006 8:08:44 GMT -5
hi6. you said that workers keep up the dress code of the 1890s-1900. that is strange because i have only seen those fashions in pictures. i think you are seriously misreading what the standard of dress means in terms of serving God. and i think you are mocking what Paul and the disciples meant by standards of dress
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 2, 2006 8:11:23 GMT -5
hi6. you said that workers keep up the dress code of the 1890s-1900. that is strange because i have only seen those fashions in pictures. i think you are seriously misreading what the standard of dress means in terms of serving God. and i think you are mocking what Paul and the disciples meant by standards of dress Perhaps you could elaborate on what the standards are.
|
|
|
Post by prue on Jun 2, 2006 8:24:14 GMT -5
clothing which shows your moderation and moral propriety said Paul. this is done in any way a given society represents those symbols. read your epistles. prue
|
|
|
Post by felice on Jun 2, 2006 8:50:28 GMT -5
clothing which shows your moderation and moral propriety said Paul. this is done in any way a given society represents those symbols. read your epistles. prue I did word search for "moral propriety" but found nothing in the versions of the Bible I have. Please site the chapter and verses so I can look this over. Thank you Pruebert.
|
|
|
Post by prue on Jun 2, 2006 9:00:58 GMT -5
felice. what i chose for my web site is this
“… the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works" (1 Timothy 2:8-10).
not only does this refer to clothing, but to good works. what is your opinion of this verse, amongst so many?
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 2, 2006 9:26:31 GMT -5
“… the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works" (1 Timothy 2:8-10).what is your opinion of this verse, amongst so many? Hmmm... looks like women are not supposed to braid their hair.
|
|
|
Post by prue on Jun 2, 2006 9:37:32 GMT -5
you don't understand what Paul was trying to say. its not an issue of braided hair, or even of wearing gold. in those times both these things represented something Paul felt were not suitable for the people of God. today excessive displays of wealth, shaved heads, tattoos, body piercing, exposed undergarments and so on would be things Paul would speak against.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 2, 2006 9:46:28 GMT -5
you don't understand what Paul was trying to say. This is your opinion. its not an issue of braided hair, or even of wearing gold. This is your opinion. in those times both these things represented something Paul felt were not suitable for the people of God. This is your opinion. today excessive displays of wealth, shaved heads, tattoos, body piercing, exposed undergarments and so on would be things Paul would speak against. This is your opinion. Care to offer some facts?
|
|
|
Post by prue on Jun 2, 2006 9:52:51 GMT -5
please, you did not understand the significance of the braided hair, and you seemed not to have read it. prue
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 2, 2006 9:55:11 GMT -5
please, you did not understand the significance of the braided hair, and you seemed not to have read it. prue Frankly, you are not in a position to tell anyone what they don't understand.
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 2, 2006 19:06:54 GMT -5
PRUEBERT:
And what about the Christ of God? What woud HE have to say about braided hair? Is that the thing that saves souls?
Clothing or jewelry did not matter to Paul, true. It was attitude that mattered (I Peter 3:3,4). My study notes say, "Greco-Roman society was characterized by extravagance in dress."
They were not to look like the rest of their society or culture, or like everyone else. It's a common motif in the bible. God's people wanting to be like everyone else. But God gave Christ certain people out of the world (John 17:9) and he chose them from before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4) to be His special treasure (Ex 19:5 Deut 14:2). That's us if we are His.
Are you His, Pruebert? If so, where is the Lamb of God in all your rules? Why do you so rarely expound upon what ACTUALLY SAVES?
King Jesus Lives,
Jessi
|
|