|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 12, 2016 16:34:24 GMT -5
2x2 women dress the way they do with pride. Pride that they belong to the 'Chosen Group'. It's exactly the same with Jews dressing in their unique outfits so as to set themselves apart because they belong to the 'Chosen Ones". The two most common sins which 2x2s commit are pride and ignorance. Pride in belonging to what they consider 'The chosen group", "The Truth", 'The Way",etc all of it completely farcical. Just calling yourselves such a thing demonstrates how prideful you are. The sin of ignorance in 2x2 is manifest in their absolute refusal to consider that they might be wrong in their religious beliefs, to never consider that others, others whom they consider 'worldly', might be correct. I'm sure that form of reasoning has been used many times throughout history. It's a common form of argument that comes readily to the minds of many ungodly. "You won't join us in our drunken party because of pride! You think you're better than us in your chosen group!", etc. It's not a valid argument. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 12, 2016 16:48:17 GMT -5
Your idea of conforming to the world and mine are different, anytoll. Those in meetings conform themselves to the world by their manner of striving for expensive houses and cars which was a big part of those in meetings lives. The in group based on money and power. Except for the implication that those in these meetings are somehow unique in the quality of striving after such things, you make a valid point which does not express the difference between your idea of conformity to the world and mine. I would say much the same, but I would not suggest that simply by virtue of being in these meeting we conform to the world by striving for expensive houses and cars. Indeed, many of us do not. I would not suggest that all of those in this form of meeting are striving after expensive worldly things. I would rather point out that this striving after expensive houses and fancy things is rather coincident with the decline in modesty which is afflicting the meetings and philosophically closely connected with it. If you are sincere here, and I can only assume that you are, then it seems you value simplicity and plainness. In that, insofar as you have expressed it here, we are in agreement. I respect you and I agree with some of what you've expressed here. Conformity to the world certainly relates to seeking to demonstrate wealth and power through houses and cars. Please tell me why you do not apply the same principles to clothing? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2016 17:00:12 GMT -5
2x2 women dress the way they do with pride. Pride that they belong to the 'Chosen Group'. It's exactly the same with Jews dressing in their unique outfits so as to set themselves apart because they belong to the 'Chosen Ones". The two most common sins which 2x2s commit are pride and ignorance. Pride in belonging to what they consider 'The chosen group", "The Truth", 'The Way",etc all of it completely farcical. Just calling yourselves such a thing demonstrates how prideful you are. The sin of ignorance in 2x2 is manifest in their absolute refusal to consider that they might be wrong in their religious beliefs, to never consider that others, others whom they consider 'worldly', might be correct. I'm sure that form of reasoning has been used many times throughout history. It's a common form of argument that comes readily to the minds of many ungodly. "You won't join us in our drunken party because of pride! You think you're better than us in your chosen group!", etc. It's not a valid argument. I think you are missing the full force of 2x2 female dress code. In the winter in some parts of Canada the temperature goes to -40F/C. That is a temp where skin will freeze in seconds. It is extremely dangerous to wear any skin revealing clothes, such as a dress (the legs are unprotected regardless of hose). Even in those extremely dangerous conditions, 2x2 women would not wear pants in public. Young female children would be sent to school during those extreme temp conditions wearing a dress - this is frankly child abuse because the parent is acting in a way which places the child in danger. What sort of insane ideas do you think are/were floating around in the heads these 2x2 women that they would risk physical danger in order to not wear pants? It certainly was not for modesty sake, since modesty would have been to conform with the worldly folks and put on lined pants - certainly not tight-fitting. No the sole rational behind this asinine behavior is/was to demonstrate to others that 'We are Different". I know this is an extreme example, but even if the temp is -10C/14F the same logic holds. The same logic holds where there are mosquitoes, blackflies, and other insects. That is, even in conditions where wearing pants is the safest thing to do, 2x2 women would not wear pants (in public, of course in their own homes anything goes). And it is this at-home versus outside-the-home divergence in dress code which really reinforces the idea that the dress code was NEVER about modesty since being modest should apply in all things at all times, not just when out in public. There isn't a way to put this any clearer: Wear inappropriate clothing for the conditions and completely different than the norm around you, all by choice, means that you are doing so with an expressed purpose in mind to send some sort of message that you "Are Different". |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 12, 2016 19:36:14 GMT -5
I don't know what everyone who speaks in meeting feels on this point, I can only evaluate/guess as to their feelings based on the words they use. Using their words as a gauge, it's hard to deny that there is widespread disregard for the quality or purity of faith in people outside our fellowship.If we have some manifest aspects of the simplicity of Christ Jesus, need we be ashamed of those things or should we be honest in representing to others what we believe is right? I say all this but I really don't know what your position is on these issues, beyond what you've said about exclusivity. For example, I don't know what your thoughts are about home churches. Perhaps you see no distinction whatsoever between meeting in a home and building and maintaining a separate structure. Perhaps you see no value in a small local church as opposed to a church with 500 or 5000 members. Or perhaps, like me, you see great value in those things, and great danger in institutionalizing and aggregating people; which opinions would not imply any judgment about whether those who attend other forms of churches can be saved. I do see great value in the home church model. However Jesus did touch the multitudes in great number (think, miracle of the bread and loaves when the thousands of people were sitting) so I wouldn't rule out the possibility of help being given by a helpful minister in a large church by saying Sunday gatherings HAVE to be in a small home setting. But generally, and not by interpretation of scriptures per se, I do appreciate the humble, personal and accountable manner in which we meet with each other and express what God has meant to us. I'm interested in what kinds of terms you speak and what kinds of comments or questions you get about it, if anything beyond the raising of the eyebrow itself. For instance, do you share something of value that was shared with you by another Christian friend? Do you mention something good that was preached in another church's meeting on a day that you visited? Do you ask people specific questions when they mention some "outsider" in a meeting, with the aim of questioning whether that person was really an unbeliever? Maybe you don't want to answer in specifics; that would be understandable. Such things are really not simple to judge. Some people truly have had very bad experiences in another church or several other churches and perhaps they generalize too readily. Another person might not have had any experience with other church groups whatsoever. Everyone in these meetings has probably heard various stories of some sort of problem or alleged problem. And there are problems, serious problems, so some scepticism toward other groups is perhaps understandable. People do tend to overgeneralize and overcategorize other people, though, and in my opinion taking small measures such as you suggest, in patience and gentleness, is one way that we can express charity and truth. Here's a recent example I am comfortable sharing.
A couple in our meeting recently stopped attending the meetings.
They made their departure quietly and without fanfare.
I have appreciated them for quite a few years and we have have exhaustively discussed many of the topics that frequent this board.
As a result I feel I have or had a decent understanding of their concerns with the fellowship.
But to the best of my knowledge no one else in our meeting understood their motivations for leaving the meetings.
The default position of some in our meeting and in surrounding areas is "Well, we sure hope that XXXYYY get help again sometime", or "It's so sad that there is a great falling away", etc.
You see, the default position of people, WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING those who made their graceful exit, is that persons XXXYYY are at fault because they aren't in fellowship with any longer.
So my reply is "Why do you think they don't have help now, absent from us?" To which I get the raised eyebrow, communicating (again, without understanding them) "well, they aren't with us anymore, that's why they need help!".
It is this default position of superiority that I identify as a character flaw in our fellowship in general.
I don't think the position is so much one of superiority as much defense.
They see it as an attack on the beliefs that they hold to be absolute and if someone seems to deny those beliefs by leaving it can only mean that those people have erred & need help.
So, they have to use certain psychological methods in order to maintain their peace of mind in what they believe.
They do so without being aware of it, of course.
Same with the "falling away" concept.
It all helps people to continue to keep the mindset that they have nourished diligently and with great care for a long time.
Upsetting one's mindset, especially a long held one that hasn't been challenged, is simply too painful for many people to handle. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 12, 2016 20:13:49 GMT -5
Do you believe dress, hair, etc. do not matter? I think we would be hypocrites to preach the gospel while willfully dressed immodestly (male or female), because we wouldn't be practicing the obedience to God that we preach follows faith in Christ. I say "willfully", acknowledging both limitations of understanding and extreme situations such as might be forced on us by others, but those who love God should seek to uphold godly standards and not scorn them. And this applies to all Christians, not only preachers, and not only when preaching, for we are to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth. Do you believe this? Do you believe that a fellowship of believers should not have standards? Yes, of course Christians should strive for the highest standards....but we'll all make plenty of mistakes along the way.  I strongly agree with both points. That's why fellow-believers should help each other strive for those high standards! We don't all stand alone! When such issues affect the whole church, why would church standards be strange? Remember that these are people who have to sit together and spend time together in meetings and elsewhere. Since members of the same church are exposed to one another's appearance, it would seem logical that they might express some sort of values or opinions about appearance and perhaps even establish some common standards. A second consideration is that as brothers and sisters we have some responsibility for encouraging one another in a godly way. If one member is behaving in a way not consistent with a profession of godliness, it is a concern to the whole church. Are all of those, and other ways of dressing, equally valid? Well, that is the main point, isn't it? (emphasis added) Then how do you know how women in these meetings arrange their hair? Sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires, and greed, eh? Do you think that putting to death the earthly nature just might possibly entail avoiding clothing designed by ungodly companies who cater to customers' fleshly desires in the way they design and market their clothing? Could it be possible that Christians should not go so far as to assume that our brothers and sisters have so far put to death their earthly natures as to experience no temptations whatsoever when confronted with an immodestly dressed person in church? Should we not endeavor to avoid putting a stumbling block in front of a brother or sister? |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 12, 2016 20:35:07 GMT -5
Here's a recent example I am comfortable sharing. A couple in our meeting recently stopped attending the meetings. They made their departure quietly and without fanfare. I have appreciated them for quite a few years and we have have exhaustively discussed many of the topics that frequent this board. As a result I feel I have or had a decent understanding of their concerns with the fellowship. But to the best of my knowledge no one else in our meeting understood their motivations for leaving the meetings. The default position of some in our meeting and in surrounding areas is "Well, we sure hope that XXXYYY get help again sometime", or "It's so sad that there is a great falling away", etc. You see, the default position of people, WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING those who made their graceful exit, is that persons XXXYYY are at fault because they aren't in fellowship with any longer. So my reply is "Why do you think they don't have help now, absent from us?" To which I get the raised eyebrow, communicating (again, without understanding them) "well, they aren't with us anymore, that's why they need help!". It is this default position of superiority that I identify as a character flaw in our fellowship in general.
I agree, people with no knowledge of the situation should not speak that way. Some expression of concern would be appropriate, I would say... after all, these are people with whom we've had regular fellowship with for years, our brothers and sisters, and now, they've suddenly left? What is it, do they feel that they can no longer have fellowship with us anymore? We've been their church, their family, and now they leave and don't even let us know where they're going or why? Of course I would be concerned when people suddenly disappear with no explanation, especially if it were someone leaving our own meeting. I'm just giving one perspective as to why people might be concerned, not a justification for the story you related. I do not see church attendance as a casual thing, i.e. just pick and choose what best suits your personal tastes. Traditional or contemporary music. Conservative or liberal rite. Specifically choosing to leave a church is a serious thing and warrants questioning. By questioning I mean seeking out those who left and speaking with them in a respectful and loving way. I would not include spreading rumors or making implications in ignorance. I hope that you personally, with your family (if applicable), find ways to keep fellowship with that family. I know it's often harder to keep up with people without regular meetings, though. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 12, 2016 23:55:53 GMT -5
Sure, there are church standards but not in dress/hair Why so arbitrary a limitation? And about areas that have such an impact! Perhaps this is part of the problem with a large church? People do not always know each other, are not accountable to one another, etc.. OK, but isn't there a point in the person's growth in which a more mature Christian may gently and carefully speak to a person to help bring along his understanding a bit? Not that the purple hair would be the first thing we'd address when someone walks in. But some things will grow if never addressed. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Yet many of those things you listed are closely connected to the way people dress. What is legalism? One dictionary says "strict conformity to the letter of the law rather than its spirit". Jesus in the sermon on the mount was not teaching legalism. He was not teaching strict conformity to the letter of the law instead of the spirit. He was teaching a higher standard than the letter of the law. He was calling his disciples not to merely follow some set of rules and think that sufficient, but to follow him in all things. Certainly we should be careful not to build a meaningless set of rules, but modesty is an important principle for Christian living and should be upheld by the church. Modesty is not the sole reason for every standard related to dress, hair, etc., but in my opinion it's the first. There are other important principles involved and understanding them is the appropriate way to avoid legalism -- not rejecting the standards. I wouldn't say "impress God", but I would say we should dress in ways that glorify God and are consistent with our profession of him as Lord. These things are not mutually exclusive. When reading the Bible and discussing it, or otherwise spending time in fellowship, we should not assume that areas such as modesty are not areas that should not be discussed among the church or that they are not areas in which the members of the church should not encourage one another and help one another. But you just said you wouldn't notice how a woman's hair was arranged. Apparently you would! I agree that sounds like wise advise, although some would call it dressing to be seen of men. We should consider others when making decisions about how to dress, because we will be seen, whether we want to be or not. Modesty involves much more than wearing dresses, however. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 13, 2016 3:59:17 GMT -5
Sure, there are church standards but not in dress/hair Why so arbitrary a limitation? And about areas that have such an impact! Perhaps this is part of the problem with a large church? People do not always know each other, are not accountable to one another, etc.. OK, but isn't there a point in the person's growth in which a more mature Christian may gently and carefully speak to a person to help bring along his understanding a bit? Not that the purple hair would be the first thing we'd address when someone walks in. But some things will grow if never addressed. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Yet many of those things you listed are closely connected to the way people dress. What is legalism? One dictionary says "strict conformity to the letter of the law rather than its spirit". Jesus in the sermon on the mount was not teaching legalism. He was not teaching strict conformity to the letter of the law instead of the spirit. He was teaching a higher standard than the letter of the law. He was calling his disciples not to merely follow some set of rules and think that sufficient, but to follow him in all things. Certainly we should be careful not to build a meaningless set of rules, but modesty is an important principle for Christian living and should be upheld by the church. Modesty is not the sole reason for every standard related to dress, hair, etc., but in my opinion it's the first. There are other important principles involved and understanding them is the appropriate way to avoid legalism -- not rejecting the standards. I wouldn't say "impress God", but I would say we should dress in ways that glorify God and are consistent with our profession of him as Lord. These things are not mutually exclusive. When reading the Bible and discussing it, or otherwise spending time in fellowship, we should not assume that areas such as modesty are not areas that should not be discussed among the church or that they are not areas in which the members of the church should not encourage one another and help one another. But you just said you wouldn't notice how a woman's hair was arranged. Apparently you would! I agree that sounds like wise advise, although some would call it dressing to be seen of men. We should consider others when making decisions about how to dress, because we will be seen, whether we want to be or not. Modesty involves much more than wearing dresses, however. 
What's wrong with Ellie's purple hair?
Bet both of you have women in your churches, even some men, -who have dyed red hair, not to even mention bleached blonde hair.
What does it matter what color of the beautiful rainbow that one's hair is! 
w |
|
|
|
Post by learning on May 13, 2016 8:19:20 GMT -5
Here's a recent example I am comfortable sharing. A couple in our meeting recently stopped attending the meetings. They made their departure quietly and without fanfare. I have appreciated them for quite a few years and we have have exhaustively discussed many of the topics that frequent this board. As a result I feel I have or had a decent understanding of their concerns with the fellowship. But to the best of my knowledge no one else in our meeting understood their motivations for leaving the meetings. The default position of some in our meeting and in surrounding areas is "Well, we sure hope that XXXYYY get help again sometime", or "It's so sad that there is a great falling away", etc. You see, the default position of people, WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING those who made their graceful exit, is that persons XXXYYY are at fault because they aren't in fellowship with any longer. So my reply is "Why do you think they don't have help now, absent from us?" To which I get the raised eyebrow, communicating (again, without understanding them) "well, they aren't with us anymore, that's why they need help!". It is this default position of superiority that I identify as a character flaw in our fellowship in general.
I agree, people with no knowledge of the situation should not speak that way. Some expression of concern would be appropriate, I would say... after all, these are people with whom we've had regular fellowship with for years, our brothers and sisters, and now, they've suddenly left? What is it, do they feel that they can no longer have fellowship with us anymore? We've been their church, their family, and now they leave and don't even let us know where they're going or why? Of course I would be concerned when people suddenly disappear with no explanation, especially if it were someone leaving our own meeting. I'm just giving one perspective as to why people might be concerned, not a justification for the story you related. I do not see church attendance as a casual thing, i.e. just pick and choose what best suits your personal tastes. Traditional or contemporary music. Conservative or liberal rite. Specifically choosing to leave a church is a serious thing and warrants questioning. By questioning I mean seeking out those who left and speaking with them in a respectful and loving way. I would not include spreading rumors or making implications in ignorance. I hope that you personally, with your family (if applicable), find ways to keep fellowship with that family. I know it's often harder to keep up with people without regular meetings, though. Agreed, people are justified in having questions. Questions can lead to self examination which can produce a good experience. It would be nice to hear just that, questions, instead of observing others take a default position there there might be something wrong with persons XXXYYY. I want to take another opportunity though to point out the difference in how you look at this and how our fellowship actually reacts to situations like this. What I observed is how our fellowship typically reacts to these kinds of situations. Your reaction is thoughtful and moderate as I would hope mine would be if I were otherwise involved in this situation. It is not your or my reaction that comprise people's perspective on our fellowship though, it is the commonly held beliefs and reactions that are distasteful and the cause of exodus from the fellowship in many cases. In other words, while your reaction is somewhat kind, it does not represent the mean (as in, average) response to be reasonably expected from our fellowship. |
|
|
|
Post by learning on May 13, 2016 8:28:19 GMT -5
No, I honestly do not believe that my calling in Christ greatly informs my manner of dress. In my parenting responsibilities I steer my children away from suggestive clothing but in the context that any concerned common sense father would have for their children. Do you not believe that God as a loving Father has a concern for how his children dress? When people do not dress modestly, then the way they dress does draw people to them: people interested in what is exposed physically, not their inner character. I don't think glowing reports from teachers, etc. say anything whatsoever about whether or not modesty is important or what godly standards of modesty are. If your children dress modestly, then that obviously does not prevent people from seeing their kindness and other good qualities. Many people dress to high standards of modesty and this does not prevent people from seeing their inner kindness, character, etc., and other good qualities. Neither does dressing modestly somehow soil a person's inner character. On the contrary, those who are wholly committed to God should seek his will in all things and acknowledge him as Lord of their bodies and of what they put on. Other people have used this argument on this board recently. Please realize that the fashions of his day were not the fashions of our day. Dressing in the same way as most people in that part of the world at that time may not have been in conflict whatsoever with modesty, but in our day there is a great conflict. If we had dressed by the standards of AD 50 Judea, we would probably have been dressing modestly. That doesn't mean that godly standards change with the times or that there are no godly standards and God's people should simply dress the same as the world. If the world turns away from that which is good, then we must not follow the world. Modesty was valued in much of the world for many centuries. The fashions of the world are very changeable and at our present time they are very ungodly. As the world's standards have become looser over the last 120 years, many concerned people have observed this trend and refused to be dragged along into it. Others had been caught up in it but have learned to dress more modestly. Those who belong to God do not have to follow the ways of the world, whether in dress or in any other aspect of life. It would be a fatal mistake to pursue modesty of dress while ignoring the truth and love of God. But that is not what I or other Christians who are concerned about modesty are talking about. It is also a very great mistake to think that we should seek to serve God in kindness, helping others, good character, etc. while saying that it matters not to God whether we dress modestly. Jesus and the apostles taught clearly that the good things of God that are in the heart proceed outward. A commitment to God is not something that merely stays in our heart with no outward signs. It is expressed in so-called "outward" ways, such as helping other people with their needs, being gentle in speech, dressing modestly, respecting others' property, honoring our parents, exhorting our brethren, and other good works. We cannot say that the inner qualities are important but the outward expressions are merely footnotes. If there are no outward works, the inner qualities are thereby shown to be wrong because "A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.". Anytoll, you are selling a perspective on modesty that I am not buying. I am not buying because in my experience as I said, I do not feel that my calling in Christ informs my manner of dress. I allow that I am not an immoderate person by nature, but nevertheless, this whole discussion of modesty as it pertains to apparel seems to me to be a large waste of time. Again, because I haven't felt an inner compelling feeling to give this topic any thought or action. So I am left to wonder, lacking the urging of the Spirit to consider these matters, why do others in our fellowship push this agenda and where is that agenda coming from? Is it not the same spirit that motives all of us? I speculate that generational influences play a role in this agenda. Maybe the concept of appearing separate from the world plays a part. Maybe people believe that in their experience that this behavioral trait truly honors God. All I can do in a genuine manner is to respond to what what I feel is right in the inner man. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 13, 2016 9:27:26 GMT -5
Making a deal out of dress/hair is a large negative impact. It's why it receives so little focus in the Bible - I think there is probably more negative comments in Bible made about us focusing on external appearance, than positive. A large negative impact how? People who don't understand and appreciate the standards talking about the group badly on a message board? Ignoring modesty leads to lower or no standards which leads to temptations which lead to acts of immorality. I'd say that's a larger impact than the risk of focusing a little bit too much on clothes. Secondly, with no standards, there is no guidance for what is appropriate and what is not. We all know not everyone has perfect judgment and most could use some help along the way. Without any standards, people actually tend to make a bigger deal out of clothing because the differences between people are greater. They look at the things available in the world and choose what seems best to the sin nature, whether lust, pride, etc.. People spend a lot of time shopping to pick out just the right new clothes. They get caught up in the latest fashions that the world offers if there is no standard to anchor them. Obviously not everyone does that but it is a great temptation for many people who do not even seem to realize there is anything wrong with it. Having simple standards in the church is a way to decrease the effects of this kind of thinking, if not completely avoid them. That immodesty is connected to immoral behavior? Of course I do. People often use the way they are dressed to attract others. Companies with no morals use it to attract customers. It wouldn't work if it wasn't attractive to people. Christians should dress modestly. I don't care a bit whether someone brushed his hair or how old his clothes are. We should be careful not to focus so much on clothing that we always have to have the newest clothes, or spend time arranging our hair to impress anyone. That is in agreement with the principle of modesty. I would not say that a person who wears shorts does not glorify God in any way. Insofar as it comes to wearing shorts to a church meeting or in public, I do not think that is fitting for a child of God. We should strive to glorify him in all things, whatsoever we do. Well, they don't. God didn't create us to get caught up in worldly fashions. We're here to serve him, not glorify base desires. If we love and trust him and have a personal relationship with him then we should seek to glorify him in all things. If you want to take this kind of argument to an extreme, you could say that almost all teaching in church is irrelevant because the Holy Spirit can just work things out in the individual lives of the believers. God has told us that he works through his people. He wants us to help one another, not leave each other alone and hope the Holy Spirit fixes all our problems. The New Testament is full of teachings about exhorting and helping one another. It's very clear that we should encourage one another and correct one another when necessary. Ross, from this exchange I suspect an important part of our difference may be related to the style of our church meetings. You are accustomed to meetings of maybe 400 or more people, most of whom don't speak to each other regularly (because there are so many). Any stranger can walk in any week and attend the meeting. I take part in a small gathering of maybe 20-30 people. Strangers are welcome but they would have to know when and where to find the meeting. Gospel meeting is the one that is held in a public place and might be advertised somewhere. In a regular meeting in the morning of the first day of the week, those who are there have generally already made a commitment to Christ or they are young people whose parents are seeking to raise them up right. |
|
|
|
Post by breakfree on May 13, 2016 11:21:05 GMT -5
I think we will understand a lot more about people if we listened to their stories ,one - on- one.... We would be amazed at what we would find out....it may be totally opposite to what we are thinking about them....
It is in our nature to want to be loved and accepted....when there is this 'deficit' ,some people resort to all kinds of behaviours...
to get our attention or to gain attention....
It is a great consolation that there is a GOD who loves each of us equally and looks down in mercy on us.....some like sheep without a shepherd....some like disobedient sheep....some just wandering around in the pasture feeding on the husks....some huddling close to the shepherd knowing that is the only safe place......etc....
GOD is GOOD....His compassions never fail...great is His Faithfullness !
Let us love one another......,pray without ceasing..... Be the answer to someone's prayer today!
|
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 13, 2016 14:02:29 GMT -5
Anytoll, you are selling a perspective on modesty that I am not buying. I am not buying because in my experience as I said, I do not feel that my calling in Christ informs my manner of dress. I allow that I am not an immoderate person by nature, but nevertheless, this whole discussion of modesty as it pertains to apparel seems to me to be a large waste of time. Again, because I haven't felt an inner compelling feeling to give this topic any thought or action. So I am left to wonder, lacking the urging of the Spirit to consider these matters, why do others in our fellowship push this agenda and where is that agenda coming from? Is it not the same spirit that motives all of us? I speculate that generational influences play a role in this agenda. Maybe the concept of appearing separate from the world plays a part. Maybe people believe that in their experience that this behavioral trait truly honors God. All I can do in a genuine manner is to respond to what what I feel is right in the inner man. I can understand that you have not given the topic much thought. I do not blame you for that. I didn't always think carefully about clothing either. It just didn't occur to me to do so. I do not believe that failure to consider a particular issue necessarily indicates the lack of the Holy Spirit in a person. He does not give us all knowledge at once, but rather our walk through this life is a constant journey of growth. One thing I do not understand is how a Christian can say that there is an area of his life that he believes his calling in Christ does not inform. The apostle Paul taught that we should bring "into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ". Jesus taught that God knows the number of the hairs of our head. There is nothing in the world beyond his knowledge or concern. Paul taught that though "all things are lawful for me", not all things are profitable (expedient, helpful), and that we should all seek the good of others even at the expense of doing what we believe is ours to do by right. |
|
|
|
Post by learning on May 13, 2016 14:12:31 GMT -5
Anytoll, you are selling a perspective on modesty that I am not buying. I am not buying because in my experience as I said, I do not feel that my calling in Christ informs my manner of dress. I allow that I am not an immoderate person by nature, but nevertheless, this whole discussion of modesty as it pertains to apparel seems to me to be a large waste of time. Again, because I haven't felt an inner compelling feeling to give this topic any thought or action. So I am left to wonder, lacking the urging of the Spirit to consider these matters, why do others in our fellowship push this agenda and where is that agenda coming from? Is it not the same spirit that motives all of us? I speculate that generational influences play a role in this agenda. Maybe the concept of appearing separate from the world plays a part. Maybe people believe that in their experience that this behavioral trait truly honors God. All I can do in a genuine manner is to respond to what what I feel is right in the inner man. I can understand that you have not given the topic much thought. I do not blame you for that. I didn't always think carefully about clothing either. It just didn't occur to me to do so. I do not believe that failure to consider a particular issue necessarily indicates the lack of the Holy Spirit in a person. He does not give us all knowledge at once, but rather our walk through this life is a constant journey of growth. One thing I do not understand is how a Christian can say that there is an area of his life that he believes his calling in Christ does not inform. The apostle Paul taught that we should bring "into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ". Jesus taught that God knows the number of the hairs of our head. There is nothing in the world beyond his knowledge or concern. Paul taught that though "all things are lawful for me", not all things are profitable (expedient, helpful), and that we should all seek the good of others even at the expense of doing what we believe is ours to do by right. Just curious, are you one of the friends or a worker? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2016 14:29:48 GMT -5
I'll take the bait. Modesty is the flipside of Pride. I agree that folks should be modest, but that doesn't pertain to just clothing. In fact clothing is really a very small component of what modesty encompasses. And modest clothing is all relative - relative to what others are wearing. Why is that? Because Pride is about demanding recognition from others, and in regards to clothing that can only be accomplished by wearing clothing significantly different than the norm. If the norm is a toga, then a toga is modest. If the norm is a bikini, then a bikini is modest. If the norm is a burka, then a burka is modest.
Notice what this means. If you wear something significantly different from the norm, then you are intending to draw attention to yourself. So if the norm is a toga, and you wear a burka, you are not being modest. You are bring prideful - prideful in your difference. Showing that you are special. Notice what this means for 2x2 women with their so-called 'modest' clothing...the exact opposite. The 2x2 women are purposely dressing different from the norm, in a manner which attracts attention to them. That's prideful. That's not modesty.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grant on May 13, 2016 14:41:33 GMT -5
Those in meeting dress to be seen of men. They dress to conform to those in the group. As i said earlier the average person in the street dresses modest. People dress to look and feel good and comfortable. I think you are pulling a red hearing saying women's pants are tighter that men's. Actually i hadn't noticed. I would guess that men have more to show than a woman. They have a bulge to cover which women do not.
It does not take much to see that pants protect a woman more than a skirt. Your argument of tightness is weak. Why did men change from gowns to pants? If course men dictate the rules so them changing was not an issue. The issue is women cannot change because men say they can not.
Dressing to be seen of men is what professing women do, especially female workers. Godliness is not conformity to rules nor is it dressing in a skirt.
Skirts are not seen as modest in many countries who focus on women's dress. Ever wonder why Hillary Clinton i think it was wears pants in front of the King of Saudi. I doubt a woman would be seen in a skirt in some of those countries - because pants are seen as being more modest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2016 14:53:42 GMT -5
Skirts are not seen as modest in many countries who focus on women's dress. Ever wonder why Hillary Clinton i think it was wears pants in front of the King of Saudi. I doubt a woman would be seen in a skirt in some of those countries - because pants are seen as being more modest. Exactly. Modesty is all relative. Arab Muslims certainly think 2x2 women are extremely provocative in their clothing. |
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on May 13, 2016 15:04:46 GMT -5
I think we will understand a lot more about people if we listened to their stories ,one - on- one.... We would be amazed at what we would find out....it may be totally opposite to what we are thinking about them.... It is in our nature to want to be loved and accepted....when there is this 'deficit' ,some people resort to all kinds of behaviours... to get our attention or to gain attention.... It is a great consolation that there is a GOD who loves each of us equally and looks down in mercy on us.....some like sheep without a shepherd....some like disobedient sheep....some just wandering around in the pasture feeding on the husks....some huddling close to the shepherd knowing that is the only safe place......etc.... GOD is GOOD....His compassions never fail...great is His Faithfullness ! Let us love one another......,pray without ceasing..... Be the answer to someone's prayer today! After reading of William Irvine's demands of clothing for the 2x2s in the beginning and then living under those "same" reccomendations all my growing years. I came to the conclusion that these legalisms of dress were to make the members look different as if that would declare them more holy. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 13, 2016 15:26:37 GMT -5
If you wear something significantly different from the norm, then you are intending to draw attention to yourself. There is no logically consistent way that this line of reasoning can apply to clothing and clothing alone. The exact same pattern of reasoning would have serve persecutors who could claim that the Christians who refused to give sacrifice to the pagan gods were prideful and intending to draw attention to themselves and were therefore worthy of scorn. In fact I believe some very similar arguments were used in some later persecutions. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 13, 2016 15:39:20 GMT -5
Those in meeting dress to be seen of men. They dress to conform to those in the group. As i said earlier the average person in the street dresses modest. People dress to look and feel good and comfortable. I think you are pulling a red hearing saying women's pants are tighter that men's. Actually i hadn't noticed. I would guess that men have more to show than a woman. They have a bulge to cover which women do not. It does not take much to see that pants protect a woman more than a skirt. Your argument of tightness is weak. Why did men change from gowns to pants? If course men dictate the rules so them changing was not an issue. The issue is women cannot change because men say they can not. Why focus so much on skirts when the issue at hand is the principle of modesty? It is undeniable that there tend to be differences between commercially available women's and men's garments. Some of these differences would argue in favor of Christian women wearing skirts or dresses rather than pants. A casual allusion to Saudi women wearing pants is extremely misleading. The fact is that the way a full-length robe covers the body bears more similarity to a modest skirt or dress than it does to pants. I doubt anything either of us has said is particularly relevant to Hillary Clinton's reasons for wearing pants in Saudi Arabia. Anyhow, if you wished to draw any support from Saudi Arabia, you'd have to change your position on modesty altogether. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2016 15:58:42 GMT -5
If you wear something significantly different from the norm, then you are intending to draw attention to yourself. There is no logically consistent way that this line of reasoning can apply to clothing and clothing alone. The exact same pattern of reasoning would have serve persecutors who could claim that the Christians who refused to give sacrifice to the pagan gods were prideful and intending to draw attention to themselves and were therefore worthy of scorn. In fact I believe some very similar arguments were used in some later persecutions. Of course it doesn't apply to clothing alone, but it also doesn't apply to everything. Things which are in one's mind (ideas) do not apply since those things are internal and not attention seeking. Whatever other item you are concerned about, run it on this spectrum and see where it fits. Can it be attention seeking? Can it be attention seeking in a very visible way? And so forth. Is there pridefulness in attention seeking? I think you are very confused about why Christians were persecuted by the Romans. It is far far more complex than you suggest. Far more complex. Involving political subversion, involving treason, involving disloyalty to the city and the state, etc. It was never the reason you suggest. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2016 16:02:55 GMT -5
A casual allusion to Saudi women wearing pants is extremely misleading. The fact is that the way a full-length robe covers the body bears more similarity to a modest skirt or dress than it does to pants. I doubt anything either of us has said is particularly relevant to Hillary Clinton's reasons for wearing pants in Saudi Arabia. Anyhow, if you wished to draw any support from Saudi Arabia, you'd have to change your position on modesty altogether. I guess you haven't spent much time in Islamic cultures. The reason Clinton wears pants with the King of KSA is that the showing of female SKIN is highly discouraged. A dress would show the ankles, which is a no-no. Clinton's choice of pants on the matter is pretty much the only option she has except to go full burka. By the way, it's lose-fitting pants, not skin-tight leggings that Clinton wears. |
|
|
|
Post by Grant on May 13, 2016 16:03:46 GMT -5
Pants worn by western woman in countries where women are required to cover is the norm. What I wrote in my previous post is very relevant whether you try and dismiss it as irrelevant or not, anytoll. Pants versus skirts is also relevant when discussing modesty because those in meetings see wearing a skirt as more modest than pants. It's been a focus of so called Godly dress.
|
|
|
|
Post by emy on May 13, 2016 16:11:17 GMT -5
Although in my experience, this is not an agenda that has been pushed, I won't say it sometimes isn't.
Have you considered that the reason you have not been urged by the Spirit to consider this matter, is because it's not an issue for you since you are not "an immoderate person"?`
|
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 13, 2016 19:16:31 GMT -5
I think you are very confused about why Christians were persecuted by the Romans. It is far far more complex than you suggest. Far more complex. Involving political subversion, involving treason, involving disloyalty to the city and the state, etc. It was never the reason you suggest. You mean disloyalty to the empire by not bowing down to Caesar and calling him god? Disloyalty to the empire by not offering sacrifices to the official gods of the empire? If that's not what you mean, please elaborate. Maybe you'll present your thesis defending Nero's claims about the Christians and praising his tastes in outdoor lighting? |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 13, 2016 19:33:54 GMT -5
I guess you haven't spent much time in Islamic cultures. OK. I guess you haven't. Some pants/shorts show the ankles. Therefore pants would show the ankles? Some dresses would show the ankles. Therefore all dresses would show the ankles? You're writing specifically about Saudi Arabia, but the context is the concept of modesty in general. Pants that reveal more of the shape (compared to a skirt) are not necessarily more modest than dresses that are short enough to show the ankles. Skin is not the only relevant factor in modesty. |
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 13, 2016 20:01:55 GMT -5
I'll take the bait. Modesty is the flipside of Pride. I agree that folks should be modest, but that doesn't pertain to just clothing. In fact clothing is really a very small component of what modesty encompasses. And modest clothing is all relative - relative to what others are wearing. Why is that? Because Pride is about demanding recognition from others, and in regards to clothing that can only be accomplished by wearing clothing significantly different than the norm. If the norm is a toga, then a toga is modest. If the norm is a bikini, then a bikini is modest. If the norm is a burka, then a burka is modest. Notice what this means. If you wear something significantly different from the norm, then you are intending to draw attention to yourself. So if the norm is a toga, and you wear a burka, you are not being modest. You are bring prideful - prideful in your difference. Showing that you are special. Notice what this means for 2x2 women with their so-called 'modest' clothing...the exact opposite. The 2x2 women are purposely dressing different from the norm, in a manner which attracts attention to them. That's prideful. That's not modesty. Please consider that you might just have it completely backwards. Maybe dressing to the norm established by the people around you is pride. Have you ever considered that dressing the way others dress is seeking recognition from others? For instance, if the norm is a bikini and you wear a bikini, you're seeking recognition from others that you are like them. You're dressing to be seen by others. Purposely dressing the same as the norm around you in a manner which seeks recognition and acceptance from others is prideful. It's not modesty. Or maybe that line of thinking is totally wrong and pride is an inward condition which cannot be judged by looking at the way someone dresses. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2016 21:44:31 GMT -5
I guess you haven't spent much time in Islamic cultures. OK. I guess you haven't. I speak arabic and have traveled extensively in the region - including KSA. |
|
