Jump to content
Online Baptist


Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


heartstrings last won the day on May 31

heartstrings had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About heartstrings

  • Rank
    Sheep Whisperer
  • Birthday 04/06/1961

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
  • Denomination
  • IFB?

Recent Profile Visitors

20,266 profile views
  1. heartstrings

    Hunting yummy things

    My donkey, Wilbur, is too mischievous to keep with the sheep. He will chase them. I'm sure he would give coyotes a hard time too. So far, and as far as I know, no coyotes have breached our woven-wire fences, but we often hear packs of them yelping/howling in the woods nearby.
  2. heartstrings

    Hunting yummy things

    My wife's cat was climbing on my new truck so we gave him away. After that, you could hear rats gnawing under the house; I guess they were trying to get in. Poison worked for awhile but they came right back. The best thing for rats/mice is a cat, so I got her another one; a neutered female which has taken up sleeping on the hood of one of my tractors or the riding lawn mower. Very friendly kitty; maybe she will leave the truck alone :)
  3. heartstrings

    The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants

    As for myself, I have been saying that all through this thread: and our Western culture happens to have been pants on men and dresses on ladies. Everybody knows we don't wear what they did back in the Old Testament; Arab/Bedouin cultures might, but we don't. The point is" culture does in fact determine certain things associated with gender" just like you said. And God put beards on our faces for all time; I have one.
  4. heartstrings

    How to sharpen an axe

    Long ago I found that axes sharpen better and can be "tempered" with water close at hand Ephesians 5:26
  5. This is part of my point. The Bible uses the word "rule" but men have softened it to "leader". Yes, I agree that it is to be in love and is not to be totalitarian, but it seems to me that the word "rule" conveys much more "authority" than "leader" does. A husband should not HAVE to impose a dictatorial rule over his house if the rest of the family do their part. I hear this all the time(paraphrasing): "If the husband will "lead" the wife will automatically just follow". That is simply not true. It takes both, working together with the same goal: to unify and solidify the family. Many women say "How do I get my husband to "lead?" And men say "my wife won't submit". Someone needs to SHOW them how! Years ago, when I was a young Christian, my Wife and I were invited to our pastor's home for dinner. During the meal, the pastor scolded his wife about the something he found wrong with the meatloaf. But then thsi same pastor would chide men from the pulpit about "not leading their homes"! Wouldn't it be best to show them HOW? You don't do that by cutting down her meatloaf if front of the guests. Read 1 Peter chapter 3...the whole chapter. It explains what the husband and wife are supposed to do. But it's up to Christians to LIVE it out before others so they can see HOW. Yes, the husband is supposed to be the RULER of the house, but it will never happen if he isn't shown how to love and the order of the home will never be right if the wife isn't taught how to submit or, heaven forbid the phrase, "be in subjection". Contrary to what the world thinks, neither is a bad thing! And you don't have to call the husband a mere "leader" when God's word says he's to be the "ruler". I will start a thread when I get time. Must get back to work. One more thing, I would add, and it's very important. When the pastor scolded his wife in front of us, I don't recall her talking back or saying anything other than maybe "I'm sorry". She was a Godly Christian lady, who always had a smile, and everyone loved her. You will find the Godly way she behaved mentioned in 1 Peter chapter 3, particularly verses 1 and 2. SHE was being the "leader" that day.
  6. heartstrings

    The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants

    I have a question, Brother Scott; If the King James Bible is an accurate translation of God's Word, providentially provided for English speaking peoples, then why would Deuteronomy 22:5 say "that which pertaineth to a man" instead of just calling it "armor"? I mean, seeing that the word "armour" is a KJV word appearing 24 times, why not use it here if that's what it really means?
  7. heartstrings

    The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants

    Brother Scott, No need for a commendation; it was just an observation. You will also notice, for what it's worth, the Biblical mention of "shepherds" being an "abomination" to the "Egyptians". And another thing I noticed is that Deuteronomy 22:5 doesn't appear to have been a stoning offense, even though it was an abomination to the Lord..
  8. heartstrings

    The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants

    I did not say nor intend to convey that the transgender movement had any impact on women wearing pants; but I would suspect the other way around. No we do not base Bible doctrine on a country, but a country SHOULD base it's doctrine on the Bible. Again, I did'nt base it on a sign and I told you that.The Bible does not say that God declared "pants"an abomination; it says "wearing what pertains to a man" is an abomination. I agree with the immodesty statements.
  9. heartstrings

    The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants

    Of course a "bathroom sign" does not determine culture. But you know which one to use by looking at the sign don't you? That's because our culture determined the bathroom signs. Now, thanks to the "trans-gender' movement, that will soon be a thing of the past. Carry on.
  10. heartstrings

    The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants

    I have to agree with the 'not examining women's clothing' part. But is 'armor" the only thing that "communicated male authority" back in Deuteronomic times?
  11. heartstrings

    The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants

    Brother Scott, Are you admitting That Deuteronomy 22:5 includes prohibiting women from wearing men's clothes as opposed to just "armor"? And for the record, I for one, never said that "pants wear" was "inherently man's wear": I thought that I made it clear that the style or construction of "men's wear" and women's wear depends on the CULTURE. Our culture just happens to associate pants on men....at least until recently.
  12. heartstrings

    The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants

    I just looked at all instances of "pertain" in the Bible and they all mean the same thing. Brother, if a man is prohibited from wearing women's clothes, whose clothes is he wearing? it would have to be "men's clothes" wouldn't it? Then do not men's clothes "pertain to a man"? It can't be that hard to understand. The verse (in the kjv) don't say 'armor" brother BUT "armor" is mentioned many times in the KJV. If it were specifically 'armor" wouldn't it say so? Maybe, since it doesn't specifically say "garments" or 'armor" it is referring to ANYTHING that a man wears. A woman, apparently just wore "garments" but a man wore numerous other things including "armor", a quiver of arrows, a sword, "tassels" and "girdle" for "girding up is loins" or whatever. So by saying "that which pertaineth to a man" it covers it all!
  13. heartstrings

    The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants

    Yes, armor would certainly be one of the things which "pertaineth to a man".
  14. heartstrings

    The Morality Behind Christian Women Wearing Pants

    Brother Markle, If a man was not to "put on a woman's garment", that means men had to have been wearing something else, correct? Unless they were going around naked but we know that wasn't the case.. So, whatever they were wearing "pertained" to men. The word you mention as being "something else" DOES cover a lot more than just clothing. BUT, clothing IS part of what is WORN which "pertains" to men. Today, men don't normally wear a sword, dagger, a quiver of arrows, etc. but even in our culture today there are clothes readily associated with "women" and "men". Both history and archaeology prove that things "which pertained to a man" covers more than just clothes, brother, and no one disputes that. There's a much longer list here for men's "wear", than for women... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_clothing But Deuteronomy 22:5 makes it perfectly clear that there was a distinction between men's and women's clothes; otherwise it would not say "neither shall a man put on a woman's garment".