Jump to content

Salyan

Moderators
  • Content Count

    4,357
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    54

Everything posted by Salyan

  1. That’s a very broad brush. You really can’t say something like that with any authority. Only God knows the intents of all hearts.
  2. Yes, it should have its own thread. I've made a 'Reprobates & Salvation' thread under Biblical Issues and moved the two previous comments there for further discussion on this issue. In response to the earlier list of terms synonymous with homosexual, I'm going to object to one of them - not by means of defending the practice, but in the interests of honesty. A large number of pedophiles may be homosexual, but not every homosexual is a pedophile. Let's not create a false straw man for people to react to rather than dealing with the true issue.
  3. Hmm... maybe it's with your permissions. It's working on my computer. The research centre is Calvinist, but I have no issue with their collection of information or the overview. It's pretty straight forward and doesn't appear to be impacted by that specific doctrine.
  4. I found this an interesting (and telling!) study on the state of Biblical knowledge in America today. The contradictions in what evangelicals believe is rather alarming. https://thestateoftheology.com/
  5. Note to self: If you go to sleep earlier, you wake up happier.
  6. We have the King James Bible section... seems to me that discussions about the Bible, including problems caused by alternate versions, would fit well under that section.
  7. Thank you for your response! I don't think I agree with that after death logic - it's inconsistent. If he's the husband of one wife even when his wife is dead, then when he remarries he must now be the husband of two wives. Or he's the husband of one wife until death negates this, thus making a remarriage a reinstatement to husband of one wife. You can logically have one or the other, but not both. My question about children still stands. If a man is eligible having had two children, even if one has died - how is that functionally different from a man who only ever had one? God's qualifications may be unique, but I've never noticed them to be arbitrary.
  8. Salyan

    Youstrianity

    Hmm... does the Australian copyright apply in other geopolitical arenas?
  9. The pastors want our church library to go electronic – but no one actually wants to sit down and check books out regularly, so it doesn’t really work. We have the old-fashioned library cards and envelopes in each book (and a secure return box, so the books can’t disappear before being rematched with their cards.) We ordered ours from a library supplier. And they are all Dewey Decimalized, because how else would I organize it? Practically, though, simply grouping them by subject and labelling the shelves would probably have been simpler and more user-friendly. I just personally hate labeling shelves - it’s so much extra work when you want to reorganize!
  10. May I ask you a question about that? I've always felt that this was a 'if they are married/have kids, this is how they ought to be' rather than a requirement, and one reason is that is seemed rather unreasonable to have this requirement. What if the wife dies, or one of the children dies, leaving only one child? For most of history, infant and maternal mortality rates were quite high compared to nowadays. It seems rather arbitrary that a formerly-qualified man should suddenly become unqualified and have to leave the pastorate because of a death in the family. How do you reconcile that with this position? (Sincere question, I'd really like to understand your POV here.)
  11. No, that's a very fair assessment. Honestly, speaking as a person who does tend to judge outward appearances (although I know I shouldn't), I wish I had your disregard for them! My observance is that the churches, like people, tend to swing to one of two opposite extremes - either the liberal or the legalistic. Either clothes don't matter at all, or they matter too much. There are several guidelines I think we can defend Biblically. You made mention of a couple of them in your testimony above. 1. Modest Apparel (1 Tim. 2:9) This includes A. Covering the body appropriately. This principle was set in place by God Himself in clothing Adam & Eve after the fall. There isn't as much clear definition in Scripture as I'd like to have defining modesty, for sure. I like Isaiah 47:2-3 for a (somewhat lopsided) definition. B. Not dressing out of pride or ostentation (gold & pearls & costly array) 2. Not dressing like the opposite gender (Deut. 2:5) Much as I would love this verse to apply to all forms of pants - I really don't think pants are modest at all, unless you're skiing or trapeze walking - I honestly don't believe we can apply it so in this generation. Three generations ago, sure. 3. Not causing our brother to stumble (Rom. 14:13, 21) I think this, here, ought to cause us ladies to watch our clothing. Men are absolutely responsible for their own thoughts, and this must not be corrupted to blame women for men's sins, but if we really care for our brothers, wouldn't we want to give them a break from everything this world throws at them? There's one more guideline that I live by, but I'm not sure if it's quite so much a Biblical guideline so much as a cultural one. And that is that in this culture, we wear out best when going to important places or to meet important people. Different people, depending on their background, or current circumstances, may have widely varied levels of 'best', but the point is that they are being respectful and honoring God by dressing up. (this is constrained by the Biblical principles, of course - I have a fancy dress for concerts that would be too ostentatious for church.) Edited to add: I do absolutely believe that churches and camps, like any other organization, have the right to set dress standards for their workers. If people don't wish to submit to the standards, they are free to not assist in that area. This isn't the same as simply attending.
  12. She's explaining it from the point of view of the visitor, and she's right. To walk up to a first time, possibly unsaved visitor and tell them that they have to change their clothing to visit the building/service, no matter how 'kindly' meant, is just plain rude. (And kind intentions are no excuse for rude behavior.) The visitor will feel humiliated and unwelcome. Mod Post: I feel that we're beginning to run around in circles on this. Thief, has your question been answered? If so, I'd encourage you to consider closing this conversation. If not, by all means, continue.
  13. I would modify that a bit to say that women who refuse to wear pants because they consider them to be men’s garments should also not wear culottes. If a woman does not wear pants because she considers them to be too form-fitting and immodest, then wearing culottes would not be hypocritical.
  14. Just...just...just...just... so much nope.
  15. Eh... I'm not a huge fan of the kilt, but I've never heard of it being a subject for mockery by and large.
  16. RU is run by a couple of churches in our circles, so I'm curious to know your reservations as well.
  17. Here's a thought stemming from this point. It's a little bit 'culturally defined', but bear with me. The culture at large has a certain sense of 'appropriate dress' or behavior. It varies by location, and definitely isn't up to Biblical standards, but it's there. No one in the world (with a reasonable amount of maturity and self-awareness) would wear that speedo or bikini to a board meeting, or a symphony orchestra. I think they also have a general sense of what is acceptable for visiting a church, and generally, what visitors wear is acceptable - for all but the most modest churches (which is a sad statement on the state of Christianity at large - I'm thinking evangelical churches - more so than on the world). Unless a church's doors actually opened onto the beach sand, I really don't see any visitor ever trying to wear a swimsuit to church. The 'swimsuit argument' is probably a bit of a straw man. That all said, if a visitor did walk in in something that even the world culture understood was inappropriate for the setting, I think it would be appropriate to kindly challenge them on that. They either already know that it's inappropriate, or they are severely socially challenged. However, if what they are wearing meets the norms of what the culture/churchianity at large accepts as appropriate church wear, than they are actually trying to be appropriate and respectful. To fail to recognize that, and immediately challenge them to meet 'our' standards... isn't good.
  18. Wow... sounds like a good recipe to make sure the new person never comes back!
  19. Very possibly. I've gotten a little lost with all the near-identical lengthy posts. Edited to add: I took a look back to see if I could figure out who used the term first, and now my head is thoroughly spinning. If I'd read all that before he probably would have gotten banned sooner! Didn't find an answer for you. Guess I figure it's a bit of a moot point since he's gone anyways.
  20. He was using your words to illustrate your inconsistencies, DJJ. Moderator Note: DJJ has been permanently banned. Discussion to clarify the topic is welcome, but he's not going to be answering again.
  21. This is just plain false. Matthew 25:46 2 Thessalonians 1:9 Revelation 14:11 Revelation 20:10 Revelation 21:8

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...