Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2015 1:11:02 GMT -5
What about them, Dmmichgood?
|
|
jj
Junior Member
Posts: 95
|
Post by jj on Aug 26, 2015 1:19:22 GMT -5
The thing is that some the dress standards/ideas etc that were in the 2x2s years ago echo that of Victorian England. It's just that they held onto them longer than the rest of the world.
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Aug 26, 2015 1:23:03 GMT -5
The thing is that some the dress standards/ideas etc that were in the 2x2s years ago echo that of Victorian England. It's just that they held onto them longer than the rest of the world. That's right jj and it was really only some and you find it in most groups as well, just a few holding on to what they saw as a standard. Yes it offended many and that's sad, but it also helped quite a few.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 26, 2015 1:36:21 GMT -5
What about them, Dmmichgood? Don't you keep up with current news, bert?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2015 1:39:54 GMT -5
The thing is that some the dress standards/ideas etc that were in the 2x2s years ago echo that of Victorian England. It's just that they held onto them longer than the rest of the world. Like Hasidic Jews, Muslims and Amish? Like numerous priests, rabbis and Imams with their ornate gowns, slippers, hats etc??
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 26, 2015 2:38:48 GMT -5
The thing is that some the dress standards/ideas etc that were in the 2x2s years ago echo that of Victorian England. It's just that they held onto them longer than the rest of the world. Like Hasidic Jews, Muslims and Amish? Like numerous priests, rabbis and Imams with their ornate gowns, slippers, hats etc?? And yet all these accoutrements etc have no spiritual value except in the eyes of those who prescribed them. Do we worship man or God?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2015 2:45:35 GMT -5
Ah, the internet. Propagator of stereotypes!
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Aug 26, 2015 5:26:35 GMT -5
Like Hasidic Jews, Muslims and Amish? Like numerous priests, rabbis and Imams with their ornate gowns, slippers, hats etc?? And yet all these accoutrements etc have no spiritual value except in the eyes of those who prescribed them. Do we worship man or God? Jesus came dressed like everyone else. Just basic clothes. He had to be kissed to be pointed out. I feel that's what I have to follow, wear the clothes that everyone else wears but remain modest. Although I believe that clothes don't determine the heart. In my past I've known punk rockers with the softest kindest hearts, people would even cross over the road from them. And I've seen the pillars of society who look the part and look down on others. And they are up to all sorts of things. Some of my sons friends had hoodies and baseball caps, and together they looked like a gang, but some have the softest hearts. There are good and bad in all walks of life. It's just that people judge by looks, and judge by what they think that those people are like. Luckily God looks at the heart.
|
|
|
Post by breakingfree on Aug 26, 2015 22:42:28 GMT -5
Sister workers now wear red dresses. And your point Walker is........... 1985 my friend wore a red dress at convention in Lousiana. A brother worker chewed her out, and demanded she change clothes because "red is the color of the devil." I know this doesn't happen anymore, in the unchanging way.
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Aug 26, 2015 22:53:22 GMT -5
And your point Walker is........... 1985 my friend wore a red dress at convention in Lousiana. A brother worker chewed her out, and demanded she change clothes because "red is the color of the devil." I know this doesn't happen anymore, in the unchanging way. Can I laugh now?....I'm sorry, when I 1st went to work for the Australian government, we had no uniforms, but we were told to be mindful that someone might just decide they don't like your red dress and give you a hard time......didn't realise they were talking about workers.(sure they weren't , still many people had weird ideas about women wearing red) We thought the Americans could do and wear almost anything, how wrong we were......in 1985 I bought a beautiful red dress, one of my relations who was old enough to be my mother liked it so much she went and bought one the same.........don't think either of us got reprimanded.
|
|
|
Post by breakingfree on Aug 26, 2015 23:06:59 GMT -5
1985 my friend wore a red dress at convention in Lousiana. A brother worker chewed her out, and demanded she change clothes because "red is the color of the devil." I know this doesn't happen anymore, in the unchanging way. Can I laugh now?....I'm sorry, when I 1st went to work for the Australian government, we had no uniforms, but we were told to be mindful that someone might just decide they don't like your red dress and give you a hard time......didn't realise they were talking about workers.(sure they weren't , still many people had weird ideas about women wearing red) We thought the Americans could do and wear almost anything, how wrong we were......in 1985 I bought a beautiful red dress, one of my relations who was old enough to be my mother liked it so much she went and bought one the same.........don't think either of us got reprimanded. It was a couple years later, in a PACNW state that I had brought a red dress to convention. This same friend from Lousiana was there and was surprised I was allowed to wear a red dress. That's when she told me the story. I was amazed that had happened to her. There were many things, dress-wise, that were frowned upon but color was never one of them where I lived.
|
|
|
Post by blacksheep on Aug 27, 2015 8:57:46 GMT -5
Re beards. That would depend crucially upon WHEN the beard was present. As per my graphic. Back in the 1960's and 1970's it was symbolic of the Counter Culture, like a man wearing long hair or dressing like a hippie.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...I DO remember a little from the 60's and 70's! Along with the beards on some of the "Counter Culture" males, there were some women living on the communes who didn't cut their hair, didn't wear make-up, and wore long dresses! I don't remember the 2x2s changing their "standards" to distance themselves from these "Counter Culture" women. Lets face it, a lot of the non-rules are no more than the personal whims of those petty tyrants that we called head workers. Get it? HEAD workers!
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 27, 2015 9:08:10 GMT -5
Re beards. That would depend crucially upon WHEN the beard was present. As per my graphic. Back in the 1960's and 1970's it was symbolic of the Counter Culture, like a man wearing long hair or dressing like a hippie.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...I DO remember a little from the 60's and 70's! ::) Along with the beards on some of the "Counter Culture" males, there were some women living on the communes who didn't cut their hair, didn't wear make-up, and wore long dresses! I don't remember the 2x2s changing their "standards" to distance themselves from these "Counter Culture" women. ;) Lets face it, a lot of the non-rules are no more than the personal whims of those petty tyrants that we called head workers. Get it? HEAD workers! (rofl) Heehee...that probably went over their heads! On the other hand, over the past few years I haven't heard any workers (especially brother workers) refer to the same-sex person they are paired with as their "Companion"! "Colleague" is the alternative term I have heard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2015 10:38:44 GMT -5
Quote - "Lets face it, a lot of the non-rules are no more than the personal whims of those petty tyrants that we called head workers. Get it? HEAD workers! " Blacksheep, I don't merely find your "argument" wrong, I find it idiotic and uninformed. Sorry.
I am reminded of those who told the Apollo 11 moon-walker Buzz Aldrin that he "never walked on the moon." He replied, "You are not taking THAT from me!"
But Blacksheep, if you, like Kropp, Luxons, Parker et al, can keep on saying these things over and over again to new generations of kids, then you "make it true" by the logic fallacy of repetition.
Back in the 1940's and 1950's a man who had "facial hair" was seen as bohemian, dirty, trampish, unkempt, even old fashioned. And in the 1960's it was associated with hippies, drug addicts, Marxists and the general counter culture which was hostile even to the Christianity of their parents.
Generally speaking.
You wouldn't see beards on too many teachers, policemen, civil servants, professionals.
The so-called "petty tyrants" were Workers who were doing what the bible said Workers were to do - keep the standard of what was considered respectful.
What standard do you believe in?
Paul was a petty tyrant. Peter was a petty tyrant. John was a petty tyrant. Jude was a petty tyrant. and Jesus was a petty tyrant.
... oh yes, and because John the Baptist judged, and refused to baptize some, he was a petty tyrant too. Methinks in this do-as-we-damn-well-please world, we need a few new petty tyrants.
|
|
|
Post by blacksheep on Aug 27, 2015 14:09:20 GMT -5
Bert, by your posts here you do more to dissuade this "new generation of kids" than I could ever dream of!
|
|
|
Post by bitterbetty on Aug 27, 2015 15:23:27 GMT -5
Some young people think certain ones at TMB focus too much on past problems and requirements in the Kingdom. Of course THEY don't have to follow these standards so it doesn't bother them. If they had to look back on their childhood and remember restrictions, then they would think differently. I ask that young people think about this before you attack someone for being "bitter" or "unwilling for the lowly way and the cost of being different from the world". You bring up a good topic for discussion. I don't think today's young folks 'shrug off' past of present standards. I do think some of the things, call them 'standards' if you will are not as much an issue these days as they were when we were kids. Or perhaps it is that the parents of newer generations are not just blanketly following everything the workers preach on about said 'standards'. Perhaps they have seen in hind-sight that not trusting the Spirit to convict young believers in enforcing convictions on kids backfired and created alienation, rebellion, hard feelings, bitterness. I remember when I was a kid that not all professing parents were just enforcers of worker talks and preaching. They let their kids come to their own convictions about matters that were not truly salvation issues! Kids raised under those types of parents I think grew up tending not to be bitter about the 'truth' and all the strict rules which may not have really made sense to them anyways... I believe there is something to be said for a person who has the COURAGE to trust in God, not other men and women and trust in the leading of the Spirit. So, maybe it does tend to boil down to whether a not a person really trusts God? Also, there has always been a certain mindset among certain friends who are simply AFRAID of 'losing their place' whether it is a place of privilege or not. Whenever you have people who are simply AFRAID of losing their place (sort of like losing their job) and will sacrifice what is truly RIGHT in order to hold onto "place', you've got a problem. It is really no different than a boss who will not go to bat for their employees and do what is right even if they ruffle a few feathers, ( or worse )? I will always hold immense respect for people I have worked with an for in my career who simply took a stand for right and did what was TRULY right and not afraid to speak up and out for what was right-and take the heat for said courageous stand(s). These types of things tend to happen at all levels of society, in government, workplaces, and yes, in churches. Well, how did Jesus "operate"? Was He ever worried about "losing His 'place' " and/or stepping on the toes of the 'establishment' of His day? No, quite the opposite is true actually. Was He overly concerned with what people thought of Him? I don't think so...He did what He knew to be right. Eventually got crucified, true...Was Jesus worried about His reputation? I could go on and on about this principle, but I think most of get my drift. Sometimes, you just got to do what it right, what you know in your soul to be right. And, as a parent, you need to guide you kids as best you can to come to their own good convictions about right and wrong. I don't think it is healthy to FORCE kids into following a set of rules simply because you want to keep in good standing with the 'establishment'.
|
|
|
Post by bitterbetty on Aug 27, 2015 15:44:40 GMT -5
"No restrictions" is the way forward now. It has been said that in America the only place people will allow themselves to be told what to do is on an airplane. That's why Americans can't control guns, or drugs, or family violence or.... It is also why it is said that human beings left to themselves with no boundaries will self destruct!! I still believe and don't think I am being naive that there are many many good people in this world. Yes, if some are left to themselves, they cave into all sorts of weaknesses, which can be destructive. But there are just as many folks who for whatever reason have a strong sense of right and wrong and have convictions which come from a good conscience...if 'left to themselves', they often make choices for what is right, instead of what is wrong and not only that will take a stand and have influence (positive peer pressure if you will) on others to do what is right and not destructive. Then, we could argue forever and a day about what is right and what is wrong. There will always be those who feel such and such is WRONG and butt heads with someone else who does not share that same view. I guess that is why we have laws and laws enforcement. Some things are legal. Some things are NOT. Some people think that some things that are legal shouldn't be and vice versa; some things that are illegal should be legal. It's a moral and ethical question as well. But, when it comes to spiritual matters and churches mandating rules and regulations about various human behaviors-where is the leading of the Spirit, which is very POWERFUL? Did folks somewhere along the way DROP the Spirit and resort to a set of rules for behavior; behavior including how a person dresses or appears? What did Christ teach about appearances? Anyone? Can someone point out Scripture regarding what/how Christ preached on the subject? Yes, we know Peter and Paul and some of the others had something to say about the matter. BUT, what did Christ have to say about it?
|
|
|
Post by bitterbetty on Aug 27, 2015 15:59:07 GMT -5
Sister workers now wear red dresses. And your point Walker is........... I don't know what Walker's point is, but I wish to point something out: The friends and workers have for too long been pointing to the workers as examples for how to dress, appear, and conduct themselves. This is a problem, in my view. Let me clarify: I don't think it's wrong to look to good examples. Good mentors are just that! What I see as a problem is when the FOCUS, particularly in a church that is supposed to based upon Christ as the Rock foundation-the FOCUS is TOO MUCH on the workers and what all the workers are doing-or abstaining from-as opposed to what Jesus DID and stood for. Jesus IS the example. He IS the 'standard'. That is how it is supposed to be. Get the eyes off the workers so much, and keep them on Christ. Let me clarify. I am in no way stating workers and leaders in any church are insignificant and unimportant. They ARE! But for some reason, there tends to be too importance placed on other humans....
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 27, 2015 17:12:53 GMT -5
... oh yes, and because John the Baptist judged, and refused to baptize some, he was a petty tyrant too. Methinks in this do-as-we-damn-well-please world, we need a few new petty tyrants. Are you sure John refused to baptize some?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 27, 2015 17:18:39 GMT -5
The above graphic was done as an example. Similar standards exist for beards, hats etc.. And colors applied to men as well. I need not Google all the male equivalents of these terms as you most likely know them. I just recall how SEXUAL red once looked on women. Not anymore. For a woman to appear sexual these days there are a lot more options than mere color. No, I don't know the male equivalents of these derogatory words so I'd like you to inform me. What would men wear to attract labels like: 1. "Cheap" 2. s.l.u.t.t.i.s.h.. 3. w.h.o.r.e.s. I'm sorry if I missed your reply Bert, but I'd really appreciate your opinion on what is the male equivalent of: 1. "Cheap" 2. s.l.u.t.t.i.s.h.. 3. w.h.o.r.e.s. Call me ignorant if you like, but I genuinely don't know of a male equivalent of these labels. Please help me out here Bert.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2015 19:58:32 GMT -5
... oh yes, and because John the Baptist judged, and refused to baptize some, he was a petty tyrant too. Methinks in this do-as-we-damn-well-please world, we need a few new petty tyrants. Are you sure John refused to baptize some? I think he is talking about here:
Mat 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Mat 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Aug 27, 2015 22:09:11 GMT -5
Hi bitterbetty, nice to have you back, somewhere along this thread I think we've discovered that A) yes there have been many silly things said about dress B) it has not always been the workers, but other older members, often family and mostly female C) that certain dress 'rules' were not uncommon among the greater society Many of us look back at what we wore or wanted to wear and think oh dear!!! Some of the things were actually nice. I personally love the old long, crinoline dresses with maybe a straw hat.....however I'm not about to wear one. I am also personally thankful for a mother who 'turned a blind eye' when I wore things that may not have been generally approved of. My parents were not very well off financially, I had brothers....guess what my hand me downs were? :-)
|
|
|
Post by bitterbetty on Aug 27, 2015 23:07:53 GMT -5
Hi bitterbetty, nice to have you back, somewhere along this thread I think we've discovered that A) yes there have been many silly things said about dress B) it has not always been the workers, but other older members, often family and mostly femaleC) that certain dress 'rules' were not uncommon among the greater society Many of us look back at what we wore or wanted to wear and think oh dear!!! Some of the things were actually nice. I personally love the old long, crinoline dresses with maybe a straw hat.....however I'm not about to wear one. I am also personally thankful for a mother who 'turned a blind eye' when I wore things that may not have been generally approved of. My parents were not very well off financially, I had brothers....guess what my hand me downs were? :-) Thx, howi- I would agree that much of the 'frowning upon' this or that came from older professing women and sister workers, and mothers of professing girls. My thought on the whole dress thing is that if a person is at peace with how they themselves dress there is really no NEED to get some sort of satisfaction in insisting or putting pressure on others to 'be like them'. Let the Spirit work, and It will...that's my belief. And, be prepared for the concept that the Spirit may produce something a bit different in others than it does in you. But, yes, women tend to look at other women and COMPARE. This has been going on for ages, I suppose. Frankly, I'm too busy and have too many other things going on in my life to WORRY too much about how others dress. Do some people have so much time on their hands that they think this issue is that important? Maybe it's simply a matter of PERSPECTIVE...you get to a place in which you sort whittle it down to what is most important and much of the rest drops into the background! I did not have brothers, but was sort of raised like a boy anyhow!-perhaps because I DIDN'T have brothers...if you know what I mean...
|
|
|
Post by bitterbetty on Aug 27, 2015 23:26:08 GMT -5
Some young people think certain ones at TMB focus too much on past problems and requirements in the Kingdom. Of course THEY don't have to follow these standards so it doesn't bother them. If they had to look back on their childhood and remember restrictions, then they would think differently. I ask that young people think about this before you attack someone for being "bitter" or "unwilling for the lowly way and the cost of being different from the world". I have a couple of views on this. Central to them is tolerance and understanding where others are coming from. Firstly, there is no kindness or compassion in criticising those who have suffered during their experience as members within the 2x2s. On the other hand the young people you refer to, may not have the life experience to understand the extent to which some people have suffered or are suffering – so they need understanding too. Excellent-(stop being so reasonable, would ya?) ! One thing that just gets more clear to me the longer I live and also based upon what I've witnessed and experienced as a nurse is to try and with-hold judgment-you may not know exactly where a person is really 'coming from'. Likely, they are coming from a place over something they have experienced. Things are not always what they seem. Could assume lots of things about lots of people>>>someone who we always thought of as STRONG, could actually have many weaknesses that we are just not aware of...and those that seem weak may have STRENGTHS that we know nothing about. And, despite how a person can come across as being very proud, somewhere in their deeper recesses could reside feelings of shame... We think we know who the 'WOUNDED' are...conversely,we have concepts of who is FORMIDABLE (to approach) vs. who might be easy to approach and deal with. But, some of the most formidable folks do have soft spots and once they have your back, they have your back. We often write the 'gruff' ones off as being hard and mean and difficult-but again, not all is always as it may seem to be- So, who ARE the wounded? What is the nature of the wounds? Who has scars? It may not be who we think and I believe there are a lot of 'walking wounded' people out there... I took care of an old army officer once who had fought in three wars and came across as formidable-there were some folks who refused to take care of him or dreaded being in his presence-but you know what? He needed tender loving care just as much as anyone else and actually wasn't even afraid to ask for that. Interesting-
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 28, 2015 0:33:41 GMT -5
Are you sure John refused to baptize some? I think he is talking about here:
Mat 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Mat 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
It doesn't exactly say he refused to baptize some who came to him. Do you think he would have checked them all for compliance with dress standards, and checked that they attended meetings regularly enough, before he baptized them?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2015 6:05:44 GMT -5
I'm sorry if I missed your reply Bert, but I'd really appreciate your opinion on what is the male equivalent of: 1. "Cheap" 2. s.l.u.t.t.i.s.h.. 3. w.h.o.r.e.s. Call me ignorant if you like, but I genuinely don't know of a male equivalent of these labels. Please help me out here Bert.
1. "Cheap" ---- CHEAP. PLAYER. WOMANIZER. STIFLER 2. s.l.u.t. ---- S.L.U.T. 3. w.h.o.r.e. ----- GIGALLO. MANlady, DUCK, FORNICATOR
also
4. b.i.t.c.h. --- BASTARD
Also, there's no female equivalent for "weak", "wet", "drippy", "pervert", "lecher" and "sissy"
|
|
|
Post by bitterbetty on Aug 28, 2015 13:17:04 GMT -5
I'm sorry if I missed your reply Bert, but I'd really appreciate your opinion on what is the male equivalent of: 1. "Cheap" 2. s.l.u.t.t.i.s.h.. 3. w.h.o.r.e.s. Call me ignorant if you like, but I genuinely don't know of a male equivalent of these labels. Please help me out here Bert. 1. "Cheap" ---- CHEAP. PLAYER. WOMANIZER. STIFLER 2. s.l.u.t. ---- S.L.U.T. 3. w.h.o.r.e. ----- GIGALLO. MANlady, DUCK, FORNICATOR
also
4. b.i.t.c.h. --- BASTARD
Also, there's no female equivalent for "weak", "wet", "drippy", "pervert", "lecher" and "sissy"
These days I believe the "equivalent" for 's l u t' in men is "man-w h o re". A few thoughts on this: At first glance it may seem the men get off easy in this regard of being judged and labeled for seeming somewhat 'loose' or a 'get-around' and what-not. Between men, perhaps they have not historically judged one another so harshly and simply regard each other as studs for 'scoring' ; right of man-hood I suppose? I don't know and never will have it figured out. But, men do take the heat I think, just in a different way. It just doesn't seem to bother men as much to be thought of that way... Is there a double standard? I think that has changed and is still changing in society in general. In some church groups that have certain expectations on how women look, such as in the 'truth', it is still the women who are expected to uphold this 'standard' while the men don't have that same pressure, for lack of a better way to describe it.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 28, 2015 16:40:00 GMT -5
I'm sorry if I missed your reply Bert, but I'd really appreciate your opinion on what is the male equivalent of: 1. "Cheap" 2. s.l.u.t.t.i.s.h.. 3. w.h.o.r.e.s. Call me ignorant if you like, but I genuinely don't know of a male equivalent of these labels. Please help me out here Bert. 1. "Cheap" ---- CHEAP. PLAYER. WOMANIZER. STIFLER 2. s.l.u.t. ---- S.L.U.T. 3. w.h.o.r.e. ----- GIGALLO. MANlady, DUCK, FORNICATOR
also
4. b.i.t.c.h. --- BASTARD
Also, there's no female equivalent for "weak", "wet", "drippy", "pervert", "lecher" and "sissy"
Bastard actually means an illegitimate child. Which I am so I am technically a bastard and because I'm female I guess I'm a b.i.t.c.h too.
|
|