Yuku free message boards

ISis:
I have yet to respond to your previous lengthy posts will do so soon.
But to this last post, oh boy.

We all have set of practical rules that are supported by scripture. Abortion is murder, so this would easily apply to scripture. "No Make-up" is not scripture supported unless "Be holy, for I am holy" is the scripture you want to distort.

You use scripture that applies to false teachers and use it against those who sit mixed and wear wedding rings as divisive people? This is adolescent.

I suppose you need restrictions of every kind for those that live like 2 and 3 year olds.

You have a severe weakness in applying scripture to your opinions. I suppose your conditioning in additional restrictions being subject to each person's opinion, you think you can do the same with God's word.

Upon our deaths we will not have excuse to blame our humanity for the things we support and teach, so it better be right.

Okay, I.Sis,

As a new tradition has now formed, I have problems with your posts. It is not your tone, lack of civility or attitude, since that is minuscule in comparison to the Scriptural mistakes taken to support your thoughts. I know why you think these things and cant fault you completely for your training. I am very concerned when I hear Gods word misused in small portions to justify what has been practiced.

If I may carefully suggest you take each of my points with grace and selflessness. When I make a point in posting, I am not insinuating nor masking my message. I have no fear in saying it like it is. So please do not read into my points. My posts have no hidden messages, as I would find it cowardess to speak that way.

Here are some of my questions I wanted you to directly address:
The sin of vanity:
I asked you: if some women in the church stay out of the sun to keep wrinkles down, is it vanity to you?
I asked you: should the leaders of the ACC put a dollar restriction on automobiles purchased?
I asked you: what scripture is used to forbid make-up?

If you are categorizing adorning ones self as the sin of vanity, you have sinned, Isis. I used the chart to show you all types of adorning, but you will not accept them. Why? I made sure to NOT mention anything that was an act of hygiene. So why would you find this chart so offensive? Maybe because you have done some of these things? I do not believe they are sins, unless someone does it sinfully, so I titled it sins as you have stated needless adorning is sinful.
Tell me the NEED of a brooch, gold or silver watch, lace on a dress, matching purse, shoes, head covering. Tell me the need for these things, Isis. There is no extreme here. In fact, many from the traditional conference (apparently more faithful to tradition than you) have stated much of these adornments were sin. Am I to assume that one is called progressive when it is now accepted practice to follow my chart?

You wrote:You and the others in this thread seem to assume that Pharisees were condemned for their rules. I have researched the *****ures to the best of my ability and have found this summation of the Pharisees to be such a generalization of what really happened, that it is an outright misrepresentation.
I believe you will need to look again at these Pharisees. You attribute our interpretations to being so liberal we would be compared to homosexual justifiers? As this has made me laugh, I am a bit nauseous to think you really see it this way. The additional rules they created made them self righteous, condemning, hypocritical; but most of all, made them guilty of adding their own laws; making them equal to Gods word. In their hearts, they were dead men to Christ, in white washed coffins. You should research this further, and maybe with the assistance of your husband.

You also wrote: Sometimes those commandments are given to me individually and are only for me individually.
I am sure you do not mean what you wrote here. Joseph Smith, Benny Hinn, the popes, and every other heretic has claimed to have special revelation from God. So I will assume you mean the Spirit speaks to you in specific situations in specific circumstances. I will remind you, no one gets more (Spirit) leading than others.

You wrote: (Your insistance that sin is not circumstantial does not jive, by the way, with Rom. 14. Wouldn't destroying one's brother with his meat --vs. 15-- be considered a sin? So wouldn't eating that meat in the presence of a brother be a sin, while eating the same meat in a different situation would not?)
Again, Isis, IS EATING MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS SIN? NO is eating the meat in front of a weaker Christian (that thinks it is sin) sin? YES Is the sin the meat? No. It is the heart that does not care about their brother or sister. The sin of condescension and pride for being more mature than the weaker Christian. No one was restricted from having that liberty. How do you not get this?

...cont'd...
You wrote: The assumption that all rules are inherently Pharisaical is not taken from the actual *****ures. It is taken from popular renderings of the *****ures, designed to discredit denominations that have higher standards in isolated areas of lifestyle that other Christians don't feel like improving for themselves.
I cringe to hear someone say they have a higher standard of living. This is ridiculous. I can live the way the traditionalist do WITH EASE! It is not difficult to look holy. And yes- your comment here speaks to an attitude of self righteousness. This is relativism at its best. Never would you say the Amish or monks were living a higher standard than your church, but YOU can claim this?

You wrote: in case I missed something, please give me the specific verses that lead you and so many others to conclude that Jesus hated rules, rather than the abuse of rules.
This is your (and your teachers) folly. Making additional rules (more than we have already) makes the word of God insufficient. You all think that no make-up and separate seating will make you better Christians, even though you dont follow this additional rule 100%. The admonishment to modesty is sufficient in Scripture. It is SUFFICIENT. Only those who have a problem with the sin of vanity NEED additional rules to prevent them from sinning. The only problem is IT DOES NOT WORK!

you wrote: Now, about your kids learning the meaning of the word "hot". I have made it clear that I agree that teaching principles is important. My claim is that a combination is needed. But you keep portraying me as a restrictions-only person. Are you doing this intentionally? (I think I even implicitly agreed that the CC elders neglected to teach principles for many years in an earlier post.) There are enough laws in the Bible to keep one walking on the narrow path.
The PRINCIPLE is all that matters, Isis. Restrictions have been made clear in Scripture. If the are additional rules NOT in the Bible, than they are of man.

You wrote: I am quite aware that "sin is IN THE HEART". Your assumption that I do not know this because I disagree with you is not helpful. Apostle Paul instructs us to not "live after the flesh" but to "mortify the deeds of the body" through the Spirit so that we might live. (Rom. 8:13) Life and death depend on whether or not we do this. Can't you consider, OnlyHim, that perhaps "no rules" and "only rules" are not the only options?
There are rules and standards set by the Bible. ADDITIONAL rules are not needed nor supported. So are you really aware of the sins of the heart? You have spent more time defending ADDITIONAL rules than agreeing to the heart issue. I do not believe you are truly aware of the sins of the heart.

you wrote: In spite of the volume of your response, I don't recall seeing a specific comment on whether or not you allow your children to self-determine, based on your "teaching of principles", whether or not they should play with the stove. Please give a straight answer: Do you or do you not have rules in your house? Yes. I have rules set in my house. All of them are Scripture. I do not allow my 2 year old to touch the stove, but he is not restricted from the kitchen. Most Christians are not limited in brain capacity like a 2 year old. I do not preach to the church about staying away from bars, strip clubs, and hot stoves. I teach what the Bible says about sin. They all know what kind of atmosphere true Christians are drawn to. Why would I teach a lover of the world not to go to the following 14 places? ...Because he/she is already a lover of the world! This person cannot be restricted physically because he/she is there already in his/her heart!! The teaching MUST be the principle heart matters. Compliance to man made rules proves nothing. Nothing.

You wrote: One thing I think the CC elders have failed to do in the past has been to constantly affirm that what they have set are not ideals, but boundaries. Thats because they dont believe it is a boundary issue, Isis. Talk to them (as many of us have) and you will know this. Their failure to even enforce this with any consistency should tell you something. I am still amazed at how many traditionalists know so little of their traditions.

You wrote: To an extent, we must mind the things of the flesh out of necessity. Transportation, housing, food and clothing are all necessities, no? Your list, which is meant to make ACs look foolish, is really quite revealing. Your "ACC accepted sin acts" column is made up mostly of things that serve a necessary purpose but are decorative, and therefore, you self-servingly conclude, are just as vain as makeup, and so we are a bunch of hypocrites.
How do you know my motives here? You are struggling to keep the chart a vague necessity list. Look again. There is no need for these things. They are adornments, Isis.

You also wrote: Setting a boundary within this continuum is not necessarily an endorsement of everything in the boundary. It is not a guarentee that people within the boundaries are not vain. (But it begins to look that way if elders are not putting the boundaries into perspective.) It is just a concrete tool used to nurture an adorned culture.
A politicians response. Make everything relative to the person making the additional rules so they can be free to change them at a whim. There is no consistency in these additional rules, because no one can agree absolutely what boundary to enforce. This is the issue of man made safe guards, since you all think Scripture is insufficient.

You wrote: The church needs to be continually reminded, though, that laying aside every weight and the sin which doth so easily beset us is the individual's responsibility, and if you as an individual are consistently living along all of the boundaries, you should re-examine where your heart is.
Interesting. Where is ones heart within the boundaries? How have you determined ones heart within these additional boundaries and restrictions? .Oh yea, you dont know. Suddenly now, you place it on the individual Christian to examine their own heart. Why? Because they do not follow the added man-made punishable rules? NOW they are to examine their hearts. Why dont your teachers teach that without the added rules? I have the laws of God in HIS word in which I weigh my heart. You got a lot to learn about this, Isis.

I will tell you where my heart is in this post. It is anguished over such immaturity I see in the traditional conference. I will get a laundry list of memorized additional rules", but scripture is a far second. Civility? Tone? This may be encouraged on this ezboard, but I have not seen much of it with the traditionalist leaders I've encountered. This is my own experience, and maybe some have had better with the traditional conference.

Unjust damage and pain have been inflicted on many innocent in the ACC, but I guess you can live with that. since you feel so uniform in you liturgy and practices, it must be rightbut is it? No.

This issue is a deep and crutial problem to the life of this church.