Stop condeming people that are different than you!

[Brian]

Romans 14:1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2.One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3.The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4.Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.


I don't want to take these verses out of context but bare with me for my point. I like to use these verses with many aspects of my life. Currently we are talking about modesty on jude2. I use these verses as a guideline to not be an offense to someone who may have a differing viewpoint than me. I expect a certain level of freedom in my christian walk with the Lord. What I mean is, I like it very much when my fellow brothers and sisters allow me the freedom in Christ to adhear to the views that fit my consience the best. I don't want to be condemed for holding to a view that someone else may not. BUT AT THE SAME TIME I am not condeming them for there views! If someone has an issue with swimming with the opposite sex then I leave them the heck alone! I don't say, "hey thats just STUPID" because it is to God in whome they stand or fall, not me. What skin is it off my back if Poimen doesnt swim with the girls? It matters not! And I don't think he would grieve me over doing the opposite.

I try to use this same line of thinking with other things as well. I wear a wedding ring, someone else may not, what the heck does that have to do with me?!!! I couldn't care less! Some folks may feel fine with having a beer for dinner, some not. Again, why should I tell the one who doesn't drink that he is basically an idiot and is abstaining from something he doesnt have to? It is to God in who he answers, not me. Get over yourselves people!

[EagerBeaver]

Good job Brian! You managed to do two things:

1. Beat the horse Poimen already killed and vowed to stop beating.

2. Misspelled CONDEMNING.

God bless you.

[Pastor Gary]

As long as you go back, reread the threads in question and see who started the mud slinging and name calling and condemnation of those holding differing views.

I'm just saying... you have jumped in, picked up a dog by the ears and started defending the side that launched the attacks!

[Poimen]

For the Record:

I didn't attack anyone.

I simply addressed the nature of the clothing and it's relation to a sacred observance and the principles of modesty and shamefacedness.

If anything was "attacked" by me it was a practice, an issue -- not people ...
unlike several of y'all did toward me (including you PG).

And no, I'm not re-entering the debate on modesty itself. At least not for now.

[Pastor Gary]

For the Record:

I didn't attack anyone.

I simply addressed the nature of the clothing and it's relation to a sacred observance and the principles of modesty and shamefacedness.

If anything was "attacked" by me it was a practice, an issue -- not people ...
unlike several of y'all did toward me (including you PG).

I thought you were through fighting. I hit BACK when you offended my wife and daughter, and I'll do that 100% of the time.

[Poimen]

I thought you were through fighting. I hit BACK when you offended my wife and daughter, and I'll do that 100% of the time.

I didn't offend, condemn, nor judge your wife or daughter.
I didn't even put them out there as a challenge -- YOU DID THAT!

But I did share that despite my belief in their godly spirits that if (and I don't the nature of their swimwear) they are wearing typical bathing suits in mixed company/in public then yes, whether they realize it or not, that such attire was immodest.

I addressed the issue, not the people. That's a fact.
You took it personal, I get that. But you threw them and their attire out there for consideration. I did my best to separate them from the issue, by purposely NOT saying anything about their motives or devotion.

And, as noted above, I am not re-entering the debate on modesty at this time. But I did want to set the record straight about the implications of "attacking" others. I wanted to go on record stating I did not attack anyone.

[Brian]

As long as you go back, reread the threads in question and see who started the mud slinging and name calling and condemnation of those holding differing views.

I'm just saying... you have jumped in, picked up a dog by the ears and started defending the side that launched the attacks!

PG you are 100% right, I haven't started at the begining, I jumped in on this just today after only reading a couple of posts. I should have read back to be fully aware of what the respective opinios were, I didn't. Sorry.

Not saying who did or didnt start things because I don't know, haven't as of yet read back far enough.

Eagerbeav, dude if that is the worst of my spelling I would be happy!! I am a horrible speller. I usually use spellcheck but when I am in a hurry I just go man!

[Pastor Gary]

But I did want to set the record straight about the implications of "attacking" others. I wanted to go on record stating I did not attack anyone.

Chris - logic, brother, logic.

If I posted that facial hair on men was disgraceful and leads others astray, I could not then blink and smile and say "Of course, I don't mean anything PERSONAL toward anyone by that."

If you criticize a person's actions, you are - by default - aiming the criticism at them, personally, and it is simply disingenuous to feign otherwise.

Step away. Drop it; this horse has been beaten to death.

[Poimen]

Just because you take something personally doesn't mean it was meant personally, PG. I'm not trying to rile you or challenge you. I even apologized for it, just because you took it that way. I just wanted you and J2 to know, from my own lips (as it were), there was nothing personal meant by my comments.

So I've done that now. Its' up to you all what you believe and how you respond. I'll say no more. It's just really hard to let people you have come to love and admire think wrongly about you and see them imply or insinuate as much to others -- despite your attempts to clarify and rectify the situation.

Alas, such is the nature of this world. Thankfully there'll be no misunderstandings in heaven, no unkind words to pierce the heart, as the old song says.

Blessings!

[RamboPreacher]

Just because you take something personally doesn't mean it was meant personally, PG. I'm not trying to rile you or challenge you. I even apologized for it, just because you took it that way. I just wanted you and J2 to know, from my own lips (as it were), there was nothing personal meant by my comments.

So I've done that now. Its' up to you all what you believe and how you respond. I'll say no more. It's just really hard to let people you have come to love and admire think wrongly about you and see them imply or insinuate as much to others -- despite your attempts to clarify and rectify the situation.

Alas, such is the nature of this world. Thankfully there'll be no misunderstandings in heaven, no unkind words to pierce the heart, as the old song says.

Blessings!

interesting paradigm.. wonder why it doesn't apply to someone's attire for a baptismal.

[pastorables]

For the Record:

I didn't attack anyone.

I simply addressed the nature of the clothing and it's relation to a sacred observance and the principles of modesty and shamefacedness.

If anything was "attacked" by me it was a practice, an issue -- not people ...
unlike several of y'all did toward me (including you PG).

I thought you were through fighting. I hit BACK when you offended my wife and daughter, and I'll do that 100% of the time.

Where did this particular exchange take place? I have followed the threads for the most part, but I can't remember or find this specific discussion.

pa

[oletimer]

pastorables

Pastor Gary wrote:
Poimen wrote:
For the Record:

I didn't attack anyone.

I simply addressed the nature of the clothing and it's relation to a sacred observance and the principles of modesty and shamefacedness.

If anything was "attacked" by me it was a practice, an issue -- not people ...
unlike several of y'all did toward me (including you PG).

I thought you were through fighting. I hit BACK when you offended my wife and daughter, and I'll do that 100% of the time.

Where did this particular exchange take place? I have followed the threads for the most part, but I can't remember or find this specific discussion.

PA, go to the Doctrine section, title "Baptism (Attire)" page 3 and scoll down to PG Thu Aug 20 10:59 PM. Then Poiman Fri @ 3:04 AM.

The post was put out for me, but I didn't bite, but I do stand behind Poiman on these threads. For thoses that came in late, go back to all threads, both in the General Discussion and Doctrine In The House Forum and then make up your minds.


I don't know were any of us attacted anybody in these threads other when we were attact. Our propose was NOT to attact nor to condemn anyone, BUT to point out that as children of God then we should dress as becoming children of God. Well read the threads and see for yourselves.





PA