Fashion police, look here!!!

[cricket]

In response to Dennis' post to mine, thought I'd mention that I am tired of the excuse that men have, "I'll only quit looking when I'm dead."

If you really must know, these men who keep looking are dead already.

___________________

So, today I was at my son's ice skating lesson. His lessons are held at a rink at the local mall. Across the hallway is a newly-opened bowling alley.

They have a dress code that sounds reasonable. Among the several items listed is, "No exposure of intimate apparel." What I happened to find quite stunning was the dress of the ladies handing out informational flyers in the open foyer. They were dressed in stilletto heels, fish-net stockings, black mini-skirts, black "wife-beater" tees, exposed bra straps and a necklace or fuzzy black tie.

What part of the dress code did they not understand?

I questioned them about this seemingly double-standard. Turns out, these young ladies felt that their dress was appropriate and did not violate the "code". They also gave me the added footnote: "That's really just for the guys. Girls can wear whatever they want."

They also told me that they thought their outfits were "cute" and not of a revealing nature at all.

Sadly, my nine year old son will have to find another entrance to his lessons because I will no longer allow him to take the normal entrance through the mall.

Our society has become ridiculously absurd.

[wicklunds]

okay weve taken up the better part of two pages on this one and peopl dont seem to care that much...dunno what more to say except I am somewhat disheveled by all the rationalizations and nonsensical attitudes. I cannot help but wonder if there is anyone out there with some like-minded convictions. Kinda sad.

[Bravus]

OK, let me be very serious with it for a moment.

There are a couple of issues here, and part of the problem is that they've all been addressed in a mashed-together sort of way. Let me try to sort them out:

1. I think we all agree with you, Dennis, that modest dress is appropriate in church and everywhere else. If people at your church are dressing immodestly, I think we would agree that that's inappropriate. (I'm leaving aside the fact that modesty is in the eye of the beholder to some extent: I don't think we're agreed on the need for burqas or 'reform dress' (long trousers under long skirts))

2. But once you've decided that's an issue, what do you do with it? I think the consensus here is that you leave it to God - and to some extent to example - to deal with the issue, and you attend to what you can change. You are accountable to God for your own actions, and to some extent for the actions of your children. Others are accountable for their own actions.

3. Even assuming that you are to some extent responsible for sharing concerns with others in the church, how should that be done? Presumably not by shouting from the housetop and pointing a shaking finger of condemnation. Someone who is trusted, respected and close to the person who is dressing inappropriately may be able to make a suggestion or comment, but someone with no relationship is not in a position to make a comment that will be heard.

4. Finally, you are responsible for your own reactions to how others dress. This may not even be a specific issue for you - it's something others have brought up in the thread. Let me just speak for myself - I find women attractive and sexy, and sometimes at church as well as everywhere else I notice the shape of their bodies, and my body reacts to that ([:"#DDDDDD"]to be explicit for a moment, I'm not talking about erections, I'm talking about noticing and pulse-quickening and other low level but noticeable reactions[/] (slightly more explicit, highlight only if you want to read)). That can happen with 'immodest' clothing, but it can also happen with very modest clothing. It's part of how we are built as men, and not something for which women are to be blamed or shamed. It's our choice how we react to that, and really has little to do with how the women dress.

Probably more information than anyone wanted or needed, but I did want to take your question seriously and address it, Dennis.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

Let's get some thinking going here ...

---

Wading into this at this point is like hitting the hornet's nest the second time because there weren't enough people stung the first time around. Judging ( there's that word again) from the furor that has occurred it would appear the Holy Spirit has spoken to many, though I'm uncertain what is understood by each who have heard His voice. I haven't seen this much heat generated since I last heard someone speak on how deep we ought to be digging in our wallets to support whatever cause.

It does seem as if, when we are in no need of defense for our proper behavior, we don't find near the motivation to express a great deal of personal defending. After all, no one has disputed my right to wear cotton socks to church, or wherever else I may choose to wear them. So I'll not defend myself on that score. However I do recall some loving words of Jesus to His beloved.

[:"red"] "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent." [/] Rev 3:19 NKJV

Does it make any difference which instrument our Father uses

to express Himself to His erring children? If the shoe doesn't fit, our Father won't insist that we wear it.

Blessings!

[wicklunds]

Yes people, there are more important things to address in the scope of our religious lives, but this is one issue that is dealt with on a personal level. But there must be some way for us to hold each other accountable without each of us being offended for addressing it.

Looking at the Old Testament, it is interesting to note the story of the sons of God vs. the sons of men.

Gen 6:1 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them,

Gen 6:2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.

Gen 6:3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."

Gen 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

Gen 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Gen 6:6 The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

Here one could certainly notice a distinction made in these verses (and others)between the sons of God and the sons and daughters of men. My question then is, How ought the sons (and daughters) of God be dressing in light of a distinction between those who are men's children, and those who are God's children? God has His children that He needs to be peculiar and set apart from the rest of the world right?

Rev 18:4 I heard another voice from heaven, saying, "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not participate in her sins and receive of her plagues;

Rev 18:5 for her sins have piled up as high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities.

Are we doing anything at all to deliberately show that we are not like Babylon in our dress (and other areas)? What can we offer people that is any different at all from the world around us? We have already mentioned the Amish and others, they are known for old-fashioned dress. What about Adventists?

[wicklunds]

Well,

I must publicly apologize to people here on this because, in all honesty, I thought this text was referring to Christian dress. The reason I thought this, was because I got it from a different forum: http://www.revivalsermons.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=614

In a particular post there, by Tammy Roesch, she talks about the passage in context with dress. Again, I am truly sorry if this has damaged anyone. I never wanted anyone to look like the Amish, just to consider how we are dressed for the Lord. Thanks for understanding. Dennis

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

it would appear the Holy Spirit has spoken to many, though I'm uncertain what is understood by each who have heard His voice. I haven't seen this much heat generated since I last heard someone speak on how deep we ought to be digging in our wallets to support whatever cause.

It does seem as if, when we are in no need of defense for our proper behavior, we don't find near the motivation to express a great deal of personal defending.

---

Which is precisely why I did not enter a lengthy discourse defending my typical church attire, which (if anyone really cares) has me adequately covered from the bottom of the neck (or higher in winter) down to my mid-calf or ankle -- or completely to my feet if I'm wearing boots -- in loose-fitting garments of budget-level pricing. I simply did not feel a need to defend myself on this count.

FWIW I don't think this thread is really THAT heated, LHC! It's only moderately warm compared to some I've seen here on C/A.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

I simply did not feel a need to defend myself on this count.

---

I understand. Over the years I've learned it removes much stress from my life, when considering whether I might be guilty of something of greater or lesser sins, to allow Jesus to defend me. First, if I'm guilty He doesn't condemn. If I'm not, He defends me with far better results according to His timetable.

[:"red"] "Yet these false teachers, who claim authority from their dreams, live immoral lives, defy authority, and scoff at the power of the glorious ones. But even Michael, one of the mightiest of the angels, did not dare accuse Satan of blasphemy, but simply said, "The Lord rebuke you." (This took place when Michael was arguing with Satan about Moses' body.) But these people mock and curse the things they do not understand. Like animals, they do whatever their instincts tell them, and they bring about their own destruction." [/] Jude 1:8-10 NLT

I'm not indicating anybody in this thread fits this mold. Merely revealing the principle even heavenly beings follow when in dispute with the enemies of God.

Quote:

---

FWIW I don't think this thread is really THAT heated, LHC! It's only moderately warm compared to some I've seen here on C/A.

---

Point well taken. It seemed to me like a flash fire, many smaller fires flaming in a very short period of time. However no one with deep or lasting rancor. And I did appreciate wicklunds later response.

Keep looking up!

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

To my mind, you have rejected the concept that Holy Spirit works in other people's lives to influence them. You are beyond hope in this area...The evidence is your posts themselves. The posts themselves show you attempting to do the Lord's work by being the Lord Himself and ordering people to do what you see needs to be done.

This type of attitude is counter productive to the Lord's work and to the church as a whole. Until you come to the attitude that people are attempting to do the best they can, inspite of all thier failings, you can never be the influence you so desire.

---

Yes yes yes! Niel, I finally see what it was that you were trying to convey in your posts before. You were saying that:

1.) I do not exhibit the influence I desire because I don't agree with the way you choose to influence others.

2.) The way you influence people is better than mine because it is not Cynical...hmmmm(?).

3.) Thou Shalt not be cynical.

4.) Being cynical is blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

5.) By my initial post, I am commanding that people conform to my standards of holy attire.

Sorry Niel... I just don't get it. All I was trying to do initially was bring people's attention to the fact that we arent much different than the world in the way we dress. And yet, this makes me the worst kind of blasphemer, and this constitutes a denial of the Holy Spirit leading in other's lives. Care to rearrange the thoughts of your post so that I could understand better why my post warrants such condemnation? It is the least you could do for a brother.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Sorry Niel... I just don't get it. All I was trying to do initially was bring people's attention to the fact that we arent much different than the world in the way we dress.

---

So, why didn't you just say this instead of quoting EGW?

Why do you need to have her words back up your thoughts?

Most people who desire to exert a major influence on others [and lets be honest here, Dennis, this is not the only time you have attempted to do this on this board], have used her to insist that the church is...'one step on a bannana peel and the other on a slippery slope', AKA going to hell in a handbasket. This general insistance that the church is totally wrong in this area, this condemnation that the church has forgone her Lord's glory due to some inspecific wayward wanderings from Him, does nothing but to create more of a burden on the Church. This attitude is not generally recognised by those who want to control for thier own purposes or politic the church. Instead, they can use the overall agenda of condemning of members of the church due to the church's Laodicain condition. And if I, and I true mean this, if *I* am burdened already with my own cares and failings, why would the Lord inisist on adding additional burdens to His church, ie spying, making other conform to a non-specific standard such as beauty/dress? Such actions are laying the ground work for accusatory workings, and Satan *is* the accuser of the church.

Quote:

---

And yet, this makes me the worst kind of blasphemer, and this constitutes a denial of the Holy Spirit leading in other's lives. Care to rearrange the thoughts of your post so that I could understand better why my post warrants such condemnation? It is the least you could do for a brother.

---

What I said was done to arrest your attention....I truely believe that there are cynics, even religious cynics [Jesus calls them pharisees] whose sole purpose is to condemn church members without cause or to build up thier own agenda.

In my mind, [notice that I insisted that this is MY working understading, and not a general church teaching] a cynic is one who has "blasphemed the Holy Spirit"...That is, a cynic will make excuses for the actions of others and not recognise the Spirits workings in other peoples lives.We all know that to blaspheme the HS is to not listen to His reasoning. A cynic's whole attitude is one of condemnation and/or control. And exmample of a cynic is an atheistic cynic, who makes the excuse that Christians need Christ because they are weak, or they need to borrow a set of rules to live by because they can not make thier own. Any miricle that the Christian sees happening in his own life, is summarily dismissed by other selfish factors according to the cynic. "He's honest because he dont wnat to get caught".

If you want to truely influence the church, [or C/A], you need to build trust. Trust is a relationship between members in which honesty of who we are is open to all. Trust between members is a relationship that defends individuals and gives to them dignity, supports their spiritual growth [hence the reason that I am replying to you] and realises that members here are subject to many influences that can overwhelm them. C/A, in my view, exists to help members define and overcome those influences with the help of others whose tender regard for one another superceeds the condemnation of those less interested in the welfare of others.

I am no moderator, and probably it's a good thing that I am not. I can not abide knowing all those posting rules they apply to others and how they do thier job is beyond me, in my thinking. But I can bring another perspective without the weight of being a moderator. While some would question my sanity, sometimes, there is the need to arrest the attention of an individual and make impressions on them to cause them to stop and think. Such was your case.

You insisted on us to go out and spy on church members and compare the world standards of dress to church standards. This is laying the ground work for Satan's accusations. You were doing the devils work, in my mind. We tried to tell you not to go there, but you would not listen. [another characteristic of a cynic]. In fact, you were not even open to the possiblity that you might be mistaken...Concider Gail's posts where she asked you "Where is this happening?" Nothing could dissuade you from being possibly mistaken or over zealous in your condemnation... So, what were we to do? How could we tell you that you might be wrong, in a general sense, if you insisted that you were right and would not listen.... I admit, the 2x4 routine is not the best to way to make an impression on a person, but it can open the door just a bit to let some fresh air in a stale dark cellar.

Of course, there is the possiblity that you might be right, and I am totally off base....

........

........

........

........

Nah!

[Nicodema]

I'm curious to know how you think we should be dressing. Are you simply concerned about overly-revealing clothing in church and/or the "fashion parade"? Or do you have in mind a specific style of dress that will stand out as very obviously different? Are your concerns primarily for what you see women doing, or do you also want to see men dressing differently as well? How practical would be the type of dress you envision? Would it be possible to purchase the items or would people have to return to constructing their own garments at home because no such things would be available in stores?

Let's pretend you were given total freedom to design a dress code for church. What would it look like? I'm curious to know. I'm not looking to poke fun at it or anything. I just want to know your thoughts, since you raised the subject. You've only mentioned thinking we dress too much like the world, but you have not mentioned what it is you would like to see us dress like.

[Clio]

Quote:

---

I'm curious to know how you think we

should

be dressing. Are you simply concerned about overly-revealing clothing in church and/or the "fashion parade"? Or do you have in mind a specific

style

of dress that will stand out as very obviously different? Are your concerns primarily for what you see women doing, or do you also want to see men dressing differently as well? How practical would be the type of dress you envision? Would it be possible to purchase the items or would people have to return to constructing their own garments at home because no such things would be available in stores?

Let's pretend you were given total freedom to design a dress code for church. What would it look like? I'm curious to know. I'm not looking to poke fun at it or anything. I just want to know your thoughts, since you raised the subject. You've only mentioned thinking we dress too much like the world, but you have not mentioned what it is you would like to see us dress like.

---

Hear hear! Excellent questions... I'd like to know too. I have a daughter into sewing and patterns and my sister will be here soon too.... a design discussion...

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

I'm curious to know how you think we should be dressing. Are you simply concerned about overly-revealing clothing in church and/or the "fashion parade"? Or do you have in mind a specific style of dress that will stand out as very obviously different? Are your concerns primarily for what you see women doing, or do you also want to see men dressing differently as well? How practical would be the type of dress you envision? Would it be possible to purchase the items or would people have to return to constructing their own garments at home because no such things would be available in stores?

---

[Ahem] I have always found that girls in pretty dresses that went from thier necks to thier ankles nice to look at. You know, the "Scarlett O'Hara's married sister" look.....

[ahem] I think that I will go over to this big rock and sit very near it, in case some UFOs come my way......

[Clio]

And I have always found gentlemen who favored the Rhett Butler look to be extraordinarily attractive....

Erhm... I wonder why I married someone who looks like Moses?

clio

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

I'm curious to know how you think we

should

be dressing. Are you simply concerned about overly-revealing clothing in church and/or the "fashion parade"? Or do you have in mind a specific

style

of dress that will stand out as very obviously different? Are your concerns primarily for what you see women doing, or do you also want to see men dressing differently as well? How practical would be the type of dress you envision? Would it be possible to purchase the items or would people have to return to constructing their own garments at home because no such things would be available in stores?

Let's pretend you were given total freedom to design a dress code for church. What would it look like? I'm curious to know. I'm not looking to poke fun at it or anything. I just want to know your thoughts, since you raised the subject. You've only mentioned thinking we dress too much like the world, but you have not mentioned what it is you would like to see us dress like.

---

Nico,

I want to thank you for at least giving me a chance to explain myself rather than fly off the handle in vitriolic condemnation of my motives as others have done here (*cough*). What I really see happening is a lack of modesty and simple taste. Maybe it is because it is all the person has to wear to church, or maybe it is that more clothing would be too much an expense, but skirts are far too short, shoes are too flashy (strappy sandles exposing the feet), dresses too trendy with slits going up to the hip, necklines are plunging too far South, etc... Men are just as guilty in the trendy areas, but their dress is less noticeable because there is no flesh being revealed (at the moment anyway).

But the initial post of mine which quotes Ellen White, (When we reach the standard that the Lord would have us reach, worldlings will regard Seventh-day Adventists as odd, singular, straight-laced extremists. "We are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.) gives credence to the observation that there is no difference between our dress and the world at large. How is it that we are peculiar and set apart for God? I don't know, maybe we should go back to wearing linen tunics??? I don't have a magic silver bullet to quell this beast at present.

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

So, why didn't you just say this instead of quoting EGW?

---

Because I am still persuaded that hers is an authoritative voice in church practice and matters of lifestyle and habit. You know, she said her work involved more than that of a prophet, and more than a pastor as some in this forum would assert. And that, my friend, is where most disagree.

Quote:

---

Why do you need to have her words back up your thoughts?

---

For the same reason as I quoted above. And as I can readily see from yours and others' reaction to EW, she is not any different than any other authoritative prophet given by those of old whether Jeremiah, Isaiah, or John the Baptist. They were stoned and hated by them too. And you presume to call my faith in God into question? Let us take heed where we stand...

Quote:

---

Most people who desire to exert a major influence on others [and lets be honest here, Dennis, this is not the only time you have attempted to do this on this board], have used her to insist that the church is...'one step on a bannana peel and the other on a slippery slope', AKA going to hell in a handbasket.

---

And what is your assessment of the NAD condition? As it was in the days of Noah...

Quote:

---

This

general

insistance that the church is totally wrong in this area, this condemnation that the church has forgone her Lord's glory due to some inspecific wayward wanderings from Him, does nothing but to create more of a burden on the Church.

---

The church bears no burden except that one she chooses to acknowledge, and in your mind, it apparently doesnt exist. You know, out of sight out of mind as they say, right?

Quote:

---

This attitude is not generally recognised by those who want to control for thier own purposes or politic the church. Instead, they can use the overall agenda of condemning of members of the church due to the church's Laodicain condition. And if I, and I true mean this, if

*I*

am burdened already with my own cares and failings, why would the Lord inisist on adding additional burdens to His church, ie spying, making other conform to a non-specific standard such as beauty/dress? Such actions are laying the ground work for accusatory workings, and Satan

*is*

the accuser of the church.

---

What, my friend am I in control of? A church office? I cannot name one chair of authority that I am sitting in right now, and maybe you are right that it is for the better. I don't know what I could possibly do to help right now, other than hand out more books than I could possibly keep in my house. And let me make it abundantly clear that I meant no personal attacks on any one church or person in my call to observation in the first post. This is your twisting of it.

Quote:

---

What I said was done to arrest your attention....I truely believe that there are cynics, even religious cynics [Jesus calls them pharisees] whose sole purpose is to condemn church members without cause or to build up thier own agenda.

---

I am convinced that people who call someone else a Pharisee, are themselves guilty of being one. I truly believe that P-word you used is of no value other than to marginalize a class of Adventists who are calling the church to faithfulness regarding our historic leading in observatioon and practice of the principle given through the prophet EW. Ours is the worst kind of us and them battle a church could have fashioned by the hand of the Devil himself. And I do not care to do battle on those terms any longer. I hope we could see things on different terms. The devil's first job is to confound the language of God's people, then to conquer through division. You and I are a prime microcosm of the larger condition of the denomination's pews, though most will not acknowledge it. By the way, there are lots of ways to get my and others' attention, preaching them into hell is probably not the best Niel.

Quote:

---

In my mind, [notice that I insisted that this is MY working understading, and not a general church teaching] a cynic is one who has "blasphemed the Holy Spirit"...That is, a cynic will make excuses for the actions of others and not recognise the Spirits workings in other peoples lives.We all know that to blaspheme the HS is to not listen to His reasoning. A cynic's whole attitude is one of condemnation and/or control. And exmample of a cynic is an atheistic cynic, who makes the excuse that Christians need Christ because they are weak, or they need to borrow a set of rules to live by because they can not make thier own. Any miricle that the Christian sees happening in his own life, is summarily dismissed by other selfish factors according to the cynic. "He's honest because he dont wnat to get caught".

---

Lord, I pray I will never question anothers' sincerity of belief and assume that their faith is mere presumption. What more dangerous a track is that person who thinks their faith is superior to others. Talk about the P-word... Because a person calls out a slide in standards, does that disqualify his faith? I don't understand this at all. I have heard about people being shunned because of this very thing, and it ought not be. Do we all change to accomodate the one who may be uncomfortable with our high standards, or do we change to accomodate the one who desires higher standards in spite of popular opinions? You decide.

Quote:

---

If you want to truely influence the church, [or C/A], you need to build trust. Trust is a relationship between members in which honesty of who we are is open to all. Trust between members is a relationship that defends individuals and gives to them dignity, supports their spiritual growth [hence the reason that I am replying to you] and realises that members here are subject to many influences that can overwhelm them. C/A, in my view, exists to help members define and overcome those influences with the help of others whose tender regard for one another superceeds the condemnation of those less interested in the welfare of others.

---

Lets look at that word, dignity for a moment, because you say that building trust is about instilling dignity in a person:

dig·ni·ty Audio pronunciation of "dignity" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dgn-t)

n. pl. dig·ni·ties

1. The quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect.

2. Inherent nobility and worth: the dignity of honest labor.

3.

1. Poise and self-respect.

2. Stateliness and formality in manner and appearance.

4. The respect and honor associated with an important position.

5. A high office or rank.

6. dignities The ceremonial symbols and observances attached to high office.

7. Archaic. A dignitary.

You say that tender regard is lacking by some here on the forum, and when I read your response to my initial post, I am not reminded of a person who is trying to develop trust by instilling dignity. I see the opposite. But I am a forgiving person, and I want to make peace with people, especially those of my own house. Please, Niel, I think your point here is well received, but our conduct with each other lacks the wisdom that our mouths profess. Jesus said to them, they honor me with their mouths but their heart is far from Me. This always makes me want to weep, because it is often fitting with what I will say and do. When I look at the pictures in my mind's eye, I do not see the practice matching the profession. I nees eye, and mouth salve. When Peter was told that unless he had his feet washed in order to see the kingdom, Peter said for the Lord to wash it all in that case. We need the Lord to wash all of us, including our spiteful mouths. Church standards aside.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

We need the Lord to wash all of us, including our spiteful mouths. Church standards aside.

---

Amen to that. "Lord, not only my feet, but my hands and my head also!"

[Tom Wetmore]

After 7 long pages of this, one might wonder who it is that we claim to be followers of....

I suppose if one claims to be a follower of Jesus, one would look to Him first for counsel on what one thinks an important topic of concern to the Church....

Here is what He had to say to the Pharisee fashion police of his day:

[:"red"] "Therefore, do not worry about...what you will wear....And why do you worry about clothes?...So do not worry, saying... 'What shall we wear?'... But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness..." [/]

Tom

[Amelia]

Amen to that Tom

[Dr. Shane]

You take the sermon on the mount out of context as it would apply to this discussion.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Because I am still persuaded that hers is an authoritative voice in church practice and matters of lifestyle and habit. You know, she said her work involved more than that of a prophet, and more than a pastor as some in this forum would assert. And that, my friend, is where most disagree.

---

As I have said, you hide behind the prophet's words and make her odious to the people by making her say things that she never intended. What did you expect of her words? Some magical incantation that would convert the church? The Lord said "YOU are my WITNESSES!" Tell what the Lord has done for you and you will see changes. You will build up trust. But you haven't done that...Instead you condemned the church as a whole. And then, it appears that you saw the error of your ways...And now this...

I thought that is why you appologized, wasn't it? That you realized that what she said was not what you thought she meant, right?

If not, then what good is your appology?

You asked for a clarification of why I said what I did...I gave that to you, Dennis. Perhaps, by attempting to engage me in a debate over your perception of EGW, you thought I would be more ameanable in my wording...Well, I ain't goinna engage in a discussion here, Dennis. You are attempting to lay a foundation that is totaly on the devils playgroud. Accusation is the devil's speciality and I want no part of that satanic work. I have better things to do than just debate tit for tat.

As I have said in other places, I am not interested in this tit for tat religious banter.

[wicklunds]

My apology was sincere, but I still believe that the words could be applied to any area of our faith. Don't you?

[wicklunds]

Quote:

---

I have better things to do than just debate tit for tat.

As I have said in other places, I am not interested in this tit for tat religious banter.

---

If the slugger does not want to start the game, he doesnt put on the jersey, cleats, glove, or put rosin on the hands. He doesnt come and sit next to his fellow players on the bench. If he doesnt want to play ball, he doesnt show up for games or practice.

Niel, I am grateful for your presence even though things have gotten out of hand. I must remind you of a couple things however:

1.) I began the thread.

2.) You mentioned that you were giving me the last word several posts back.

Since then you have returned several times, which is fine. But don't come back time and again saying you arent interested in any more discussion. It is too complex for us simple-minded folk to handle.

Dennis

[Tom Wetmore]

Quote:

---

You take the sermon on the mount out of context as it would apply to this discussion.

---

Oh...and how is that, Shane? Give us the narrow context to which you wish to hold Jesus?

I read His words to be rather broad and far-reaching in their application if you care to understand the context of that mountain upon which He sat.

If I should not worry about what I wear, what room is left to worry about what you wear? To start down the path of examining the speck of clothing worn by another that catches my eye, most seriously pokes me in my wandering eye with a rather large stick which should be my priority to remove since I put it there myself. And as I recall, that was spoken in the context of the same sermon on the same mountain by the same Man whose words all need to be taken seriously to heart. It is just that simple in its full context.

How narrowly do you want to understand that concept?

Tom

[Guest]

Tom,

You've missed the point. Completely, entirely, and remarkably well, even after it was layed out in such a way that missing the point was darn hard to do.

Larry