Leaderboard

The problem comes in with defining what is "better clothes." When I came to this country, I brought my Sabbath suit: coat, matching pants, tie, special black belt to go with it, black socks, black polished shoes, etc.--Far more expensive clothing than anyone around here wears, and far less fit for the climate and culture. If I'm going to church to meet God in my "best," I suppose that is what I should wear. But around here, no one dresses this way, it is not fit for the climate, and it is not best for my health. In the heat and humidity, my feet would begin to rot in those shoes, even for the few hours spent traveling to and from church or during the afternoon activities in the neighborhood (at church, shoes are removed here). I quickly "dressed down" to the simpler attire in which I teach: no tie, different set of shoes (unpolished), pants of a kind of material more suitable to sitting on the floor (often the case here, even in church), and a simple button-down shirt. Forget the black socks--most here don't wear socks at all, and when I wear them, I must do so without shoes inside the building. I think, following the Bible and Mrs. White, there are some principles to keep in mind with regard to our attire: 1) Health is the most important, and may trump everything else. 2) Modesty is next most important. 3) Cleanliness and neatness follows. 4) Lack of unnecessary adornments, such as frills and lace, etc. 5) The quality of the material should be durable and modest, not expensive. Following the above guidelines, careful readers might soon conclude that clothing should be loosely fit, the weight of it should be hung from the shoulders, the pattern from which it is designed should include no unnecessary designs for the sake of fashion merely, and it should cover the body as needed for both modesty and warmth. The limbs should not be left to become cold while the torso is kept warm, no restrictions should be placed around the delicate organs of the abdomen (the use of suspenders, instead of belts, is indicated), etc. As for having a "special" outfit for Sabbath, I see no reason to "dress down" on other days in order to look, by comparison, "better" on Sabbath, if every day one dresses well. If one works outdoors or in a mechanics shop, his or her clothes need not be of the same variety for church. Wearing jeans is a matter of culture--but in my opinion, Mrs. White would have supported them in terms of their durability and cost (no need to have silk). God is no respecter of persons. Our dress is not really for appearance. It is more for decency and health. The question to be asked should not really be "will God like how I look?" It should be "will how I dress be of benefit to me and not a distraction for others?" God likes people to be able to worship in church. If we preserve our own health and decency, we can concentrate better on the message. If our appearance distracts others (is not modest, is odd-looking, is not clean, etc.), unless this still happens to be the best we have and can offer, it is wrong. None should be barred from church attendance for lack of having a certain quality of attire, of course.

It really goes back to attitude. Inexpensive is not always the best buy. My children grew up on thrift store clothing. Much of what, I wear if I don't make it comes from there. I do that so I can purchase the more expensive clothing that tends to be better made and last longer. Not to "impress" someone else. Recently I purchased a 50.00 sweater new with tags for 5.00. It is really the same to me when someone asks if it is really necessary to pay tithe or go to church to be saved. Attitude. If those are questions you ask it is probably better you you don't do either. If this is how you view those that dress well but high value clothing is not necessarily dressing well but is more an act to attract attention to oneself maybe it is better to dress as you would anywhere with as little thought than to make those kinds of motives the reason of those that would dress well

I was reading one writer who had a whole different take on the modesty issue. While some relate modesty to how many square inches of skin that may or may not be covered, it could also be how extravagant the clothing worn is. The writer was of the opinion that ideally the clothing should be no more expensive than thrift store clothing or at the most expensive from Kmart! I tend to agree with this writer. Showing up in an expensive three piece suit is rather immodest under those definitions. Historically, it seems, modesty was largely used against women for how much skin was visible. Often those making the remarks were dressed in expensive suits, expensive watches, and drove expensive cars as they looked down their nose. Always sad to see the pretentiousness some people display when they put others down. True, you should consider dressing "well" when going to church, but high value clothing is not necessarily dressing well but is more an act to attract attention to oneself. Our church just lost a member who NEVER wore anything but blue jeans to church. I suspect he was actually buried in his jeans as it would have been unlike him to be at rest anyway otherwise. At his funeral, he was well spoken of for the love he had for others. One of the things I learned when coming to the mountains is, people don't dress the way they do in much of the rest of the country. Blue jeans are very acceptable attire even at a funeral.

it's a disaster!! SAD. lol

Alternative facts!!! Cool twist on Pam's meaning but still wrong!! This thread needs a good dose of humor!!!!

Thank you, Bonnie for calling me on my stuff. I deserve it! As a Child of God I hold myself up to a standard on what to say here and how to treat people. Though I fail way to often. I have to step away from this thread for it touches a very sensitive nerve.I believe God doesn't ever look and judge our appearance (1 Sam 16:7) and I love HIM for that among oh so many reasons I unfollowed this thread now. Thanks again, Bonnie, for calling me out on the carpet. I hear you. # i wish i can take back my post

If I understand this one word post correctly, you have just admitted that the entire Barely Adventist forum is an attack upon the church, its doctrines and its leadership for the purpose of it, Barely Adventist, is show how wrong all of those things are. Ironic isn't it how God led so strongly in the establishment of all of those doctrines and in the establishment of the church too, now they are all wrong. Truth established by God is always truth. Its stability is the proof of its divine origin. But divine truth has always been pretty unpopular from Adam's day until now and will continue to be so until the second coming.

See: http://atoday.org/friedensau-adventist-university-responds-to-unity-in-mission/ An interesting comment form the above documents follows:

BINGO!

"Barely Adventist" might be better labeled as "Pseudo-Adventist." God led the Seventh-day Adventist Church from its very beginning, and gave direct instruction to her through the instrumentality of Mrs. White. Mrs. White's writings anticipated much that we see in the church today. The following paragraph applies to the exact sort of "humor" to be found here in this forum.

"God will provide."

this is one of the silliest threads ever, imho... to debate the merits of humor... I can't believe I'm posting here.

Did Jesus use "fake" stories in his teaching? Please be reminded of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Look at the controversy on the nature of hell that's come about because of that parable. But Jesus obviously had a reason to use such a colorful story... "Fake news" and "fake stories" aren't necessarily deceit if one's intent is to *make a point* with the story, rather than have the story be taken as fact.

The pastor? He was laughing at himself and what had happened to him so it is fine to laugh with him. He saw the hujmor in it. Does God really see humor in mocking His people? I see nowhere in the Bible that He does. Was Elijah mocking God's servants? No. He was mocking the outright enemies of God. Look at what Balaam said about the children of Israel when Balaak asked him to curse them. Balaam said that God saw nothing wrong with His people, and he said that under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The only time God says anything negative is when His people are in outright rebellion against Him and ignoring His laws and His righteousness. That people disagree with a political agenda does not make them rebellious against God. It says they disagree with a political agenda. To tell the truth I see no evidence from the Bible at all that we are to look to current politics for our agendas and what the church is to be all about. To me that is bringing the world into the church and we are supposed to be in the world but not of the world. Meaning that while we are here the world is to have its own agenda and we are to have a different agenda that comes from God and God alone. C.D. Brooks said it well. He said he once got all upset about some racism he saw in church members and his professor called him into his office and read him a statement from the SOP on how the devil will always have some way of distracting us from what should be our real agenda. C.D. said he never forgot that and as such he always presented the gospel and left racial politics alone as it has nothing to do with presenting the gospel. I'm paraphrasing C.D. greatly but that is the gist of what he said in a couple of his sermons. As C.D. grew up in the deep south during the time of blatant racism his words carry a lot of weight on the subject.

mockery? to exaggerate our irritations and a cure for them... is not mockery in any sense of the word. one pastor told a story how he got stuck in the mud... and this was irritating and a challenge, and he was far from town at a bird reserve, on Sabbath... and there came some nice members of his church driving towards him, he waved. and just as he was pushing hard to get out of the mud he slipped in the mud, then as rising his pants ripped, really big something he could not conceal with his jacket and he was a large man. now there was humor in this though at the time i do not suspect he was laughing... the each step in the exaggeration of his predicament the humor increased... was anyone mocking this dear academic pastor? so there is place for laughing at ourselves and it is not disdaining the Lord of Heaven in any way... it is a release of tension, a healthy release. In Scripture the lord says to his enemies, i have you in derision... i am laughing at you. Elijah laughed at the priest of Baal on Mt. Carmel. it is good to know it is ok to laugh at our seriousness when we ultimately know God is in charge and His pruposes are working out, and it is His will for us to be bale to laugh and reduce distress and feel good and live longer.

Are you saying that you would be comfortable sitting down next to Jesus and mocking His church and the men He has placed in leadership positions? Do you really think He would find that funny?

Maybe you ought to ask yourself why it is not removed.

when we laugh at ourselves and our fears.... it helps protect from the dangers of seriousness. We are not in control to begin with. and to laugh at exaggeration of control can be relief comic relief, and a poke at our ego. seriousness can be a very serious condition, people have died of seriousness.

I agree that God gave us the gift of laughter because He likes to laugh too. But He laughs with His creation, not at His creation and the difference between the two laughters is immense.

Once upon a time there was this handsome prince. As you probably guessed by the title he offended the wrong person and "ZAP" he was turned into a frog. Of course the cure was to have a pretty girl kiss him so that he can return into being the handsome young prince. The frog went on his quest to find a pretty girl to restore him, but try as he might nothing worked. At first the frog got oh so discouraged, but he did not let his discouragement daunt his quest. He continued to persevere on. As time went by he did not seem to get any closer to meeting the pretty girl who could free him from the spell, however he learned the virtues of humility and kindness. He made friends with other frogs and came to realize that life as a frog was not that bad. While he still hoped to find the pretty girl to restore to a prince, he decided that he would still do ok through life if he had to live it as a frog. One day he and his other frog friends went to a fair, and the frog went in to see the fair's fortune teller. She looked into her crystal ball and said "I see that soon you are going to meet a pretty girl who is going to want to learn everything about you/" At these words his heart leaped and glowed with hope. While he no longer minded being a frog, he still had the hope of being restored to the prince that he was, and now having learned the lessons of humility and kindness he knew that he would be a much better prince than he ever was before. Words had a hard time finding his lips, but he finally asked "Can you see where and when I will meet her?" the fortune teller again looked into the Crystal ball and said "Next term's biology class."

Shirley and Sadie, two elderly ladies in a senior’s residence in Miami were enjoying the sunshine on a bench outside their residence. This was their daily ritual on every sunny day for the past 9 years, chatting and enjoying each other's friendship. One day Shirley turned to Sadie and said, "Please don't be angry with me, bubbaleh, but I am embarrassed after all these years. What is your name? I am trying to remember, but I just can't." Sadie stared at her, looking very distressed, said nothing for two full minutes, and finally said, "How soon do you have to know?"