1. In regards to sister BMac, I did say that your comment came at a time when no one had mentioned anything about her gender up to that point.
If I may let me use the same sentence to show you what I mean.
As a male, I would be very uncomfortable if not somewhat embarrassed going into a ladies lingerie shop. If there were benches "strategically placed" where I could sit while she did her shopping and watch for her exit from the store, I would be grateful. Whereas a sensitive female might instead look at the benches as a place where gawkers can sit and ogle the people going in and out of the store. It is a matter of perspective.
I don't pretend to know what every man or woman thinks or the intent of all that they say. This forum is one of words. We can and must discern things from what people say and the way it is said. (Matt. 12:34b) Some of the things about which you frequently comment would be very inappropriate for a man and would make us wonder where you spend your internet time away from here.
There have been people temporarily misidentified, penny, BMac, and TMC were all inaccurately called men. But the more people post, the more you get a sense of who they are and what they hold dear.
sc, this is a genuine matter of concern for your own credibility here. You stated, " If you have a different experience at your local mall,good for you. I wouldn't be comfortable as a woman walking in the mall and having to pass lingerie stores with men perched on the benches that are strategically placed within eye shot of them." No man would use the words "as a woman".
You recently bemoaned that you felt people were not taking BMcCausland seriously enough due to her gender. Seeing no one up to that point, had said anything about her gender(which would change the narrative), it would be a thought that would only come from another woman who felt the same way.
Your post are consistently made from the female perspective, how do I know, I am a male, I know how men think.
The only one who thinks you are gender neutral in this forum is you.
I would say from watching how people post here over the past few years, the earlier tendency (before you came) to look down on woman posters as inferior has all but disappeared.
Do as you wish, I just think you are destroying your own credibility when you make such statements.
s c wrote: Unprofitable,the passage which you have selected to make your point would include things like porn and poison as well?
I will trust your judgment to figure those questions out on your own and to decipher what the Scriptural teaching is concerning the verse. I trust you don't have a problem accepting the Bible for what it says.
Penny, while the left and Jim from Lincoln wrongfully accuses conservatives of being alt right, the current head of Brietbart is very much pro alt right and has said Brietbart news is a channel for the, alt right, as TMC pointed out. Which is sad because it taints them as a reliable source.
s c wrote: B.Mc. has best expressed and addressed the issue,better than I.
you not giving yourself enough credit here sc.
BMac ignored when her arguments were proven to be fallacious in their thinking and claimed everyone else was wrong and only she had proper understanding of the subject. That is exactly what you would have done. She doesn't have one up on you. Give yourself some kudos here.
We will let the apostle weigh in on the subject
Romans 14:14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
B. McCausland wrote: Thanks for you communication. Sorry, just to comment that the above is a flawed syllogism you make, going out in a tangent from the matter in question.
"A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error."
so my premise that there are no sites that put up pictures of skimpy clothing with no persons in them to attract those who are trying to fulfill the lust of the flesh is false, if you say so.
No lust will happen apart from the garment being occupied by a body. That is the point that you and sc seem to be missing. I am not denying the designers or the wearers intent, I am saying it is not the fault of the material out of which the article is made. You are blaming the clothing, I am holding the Biblical position of holding the people responsible for the choices they make and the things that they do.
I doubt you would consider yourself as "blind" but will give you the benefit of the doubt. I really don't see this discussion going anywhere so I will pretty much bow out. I would say that you will not find a website meant to appeal to the baser elements of men that simply has pictures of skimpy garments. Even the world who created the outfits sees the fallacy of your thinking. As to your second point it is my confidence in that verse that establishes my thinking. See my 12/5 9:39 p.m.. post
To BMac and sc, there is nothing about any attire in and of itself that is "vulgar" or sensuous until it is worn in the open by a person. A gun does not kill, maim, or defend by itself it must be picked up and used by a human. Clothing and guns have no thoughts or intentions that can be judged.
Also, just because a Christian man sees a woman in less than appropriate does not mean his hormones go out of control and he is overcome with lustful thoughts.
There are places a Christian aught not to go, but the problem isn't the brick, mortar, boards, nails, etc. used to make the building that houses the business. It would be like blaming the computer, monitor and modem for a person's inappropriate web usage. Mike (12/6/16 10:32 AM Mike| New York) quoted verses in his post (by the way thanks for you kind remarks brother) that get to the heart of the matter. If we are going to base our beliefs on what the Bible says then we don't blame the product for the actions of the person.
Also, BMac, not defending those calling you a pharisee, but not sure how calling me blind is fulfilling Ephesians 4:29 that you correctly admonished others to do. What I post is not randomly written without thought.
s c wrote: The design of a dress,the kind of material,the fit,etc....can indeed be vulgar. You can't figure this out?
just my opinion sc, but I think you should give some consideration to what is being said here. You are basically saying that men will think lustful thoughts because they see a mannequin in a miniskirt or pass a rack of little black dresses in the clothing section. Believe me there are plenty of woman whose indecent attire is turning heads but not towards them. We should look away in either case, but with some it is not a struggle to do what is right.
It is indeed, as Conner stated, a heart issue. If you have set your heart to follow Philippians 4:8; have a holy desire also to put on the Lord Jesus Christ and not make provision for the flesh, want to crucify your lust which are upon the earth, wish to set your affections on things above, then you don't look for opportunities to be disloyal and unloving to your worthy Master and King but you guard your heart with all diligence and walk each moment by His grace and for His glory in the fear of God. (Genesis 39:9)
Think whatever you wish, I just think you should give the advice from the previous poster some consideration, instead indicating you view them as a dunce.
I am pretty certain these people would have said that they way Israelites treated animals for the purposes of worshiping God was not humane (really humane and animals don't belong in the same sentence, they are not human) The Bible says the righteous man regards the life of his beast, so animals are to treated properly, but non farm bureaucrats have no clue as to what is proper treatment for animals.
Also a general rule, no one does work for free, so money is a proper incentive. The Bible says the laborer is worthy of his hire and God condemned those who did not pay wages owed.
connor wrote: Jeremy wrote, "JC Ryle was a great man of God! Love his work on holiness." I really want to read that book!!! Now I know it's something I got to read.
Just for your info, the vast majority of the book is read by a lady from Still Waters Revival Books in mp3 format here on SermonAudio. (look under speakers, J C Ryle keyword holiness or follow the link below) You could download the files on a device that plays those files and listen while driving, walking, shopping, etc.
s c wrote: So,Unprofitable,Job had it wrong? And...aren't there Scriptures in regards to not making provision for the flesh? ...not the s c world that you have a problem with...seems to be loose use of God's Word.
Job didn't say the word "see" either. He made a covenant with his eyes not to think (seriously consider, same word used for someone who teaches or has understanding) The problem, sister, with your assumptions is that men have no control over their lust in the presence of an improperly clad female. You assume that people take in, say a tv show, for the purpose of seeing someone in less than modest apparel. If they can't wait (an example you used) to see the weather lady, then yes, they are making provision for the flesh to fulfill the lust thereof, but that would be rare. Thing is, your thinking is built on an improper base (that men only take in things to fulfill their fleshly desires), therefore the conclusions is inaccurate.
My last word on this matter in this thread, seeing you are charging me with "loose use of God's Word "(wonder if others think the same) No response to whatever you post, you have the last words. Thanks.
s c wrote: (looking upon someone to lust is the same)
The Bible word "look" is a present/active/participle verb which means the subject is looking and continuing to look (same found in ask and ye shall find --present/active/imperative--it is ask and keep on asking) and has these lustful intentions already in their heart that are just being manifested by their covetous actions. It portrays the idea of looking longingly, and the same Greek word is also translated covet.
In the sc world, it isn't look as the Lord meant it, it is just, see. Until you make that distinction you will continue, in my opinion, to wrongfully assess things. You also are not distinguishing between the professing church and the possessing church.
Thanks for your answer, hope you have a blessed Lord's day
These people need our compassion not our condemnation. Some of lost loved ones, many have lost their homes and all their belongings, some business have already said they aren't going to reopen after their buildings had burned to the ground. This is one of largest tourist areas in the United States, so the lasting effects could effect many who live and make their livings there which would more than likely include some dear brothers and sisters in the Lord. The out pouring of help has been phenomenal. Our church is helping 10 families that lost everything and supplying baskets with necessities for others and donating to the first responders. We are hoping to use this as a means of getting the gospel out to those in need. Please pray for those who are suffering due to this devastation. Thanks.
And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise
Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith.
s c wrote: If he was a sodomite,we would never hear the end of it but a playboy with a wife who is indiscreet with her body...not so bothersome.
I take it you didn't read the plethora of comments about Trump and his lifestyle for nearly 18 months that populated this board or you wouldn't not have made such an observation.
What you seem to choose to ignore is
there isn't a group of drunks trying to force the church to have drinking parties.
there isn't a group of adulterers trying to get the church to make it's ministers stop preaching against adultery.
there isn't (yet) a group of polygamists trying to get the church to perform multiple partner marriage vows.
there is a group of immodest dressers trying to make the church goers wear skimpy clothing.
There is a group of LGBT people trying to define "anti-gay" messages as hate speech and shut up the preachers and teachers.
There is a group of transgenders trying to make the church allow men into woman's restrooms.
It is not that the church doesn't condemn (or winks at) heterosexual sins (see SA sermons) and is more against homosexuals. It is they must fight the onerous intrusion of the godless lifestyle of the LBGT crowd on their ministries and in their public life.
ladybug wrote: I read an article where homosexual designer Tom Ford has refused to design anything for Mrs. Trump [ source - http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/tom-ford-melania-trump-wear-clothing/story?id=43881495]. He designed a dress for M. Obama, perhaps because he's a democrat. Now, if you are a Christian baker or florist, you must provide your service to the homosexual or you get dragged into court and sued - yet- the homosexual can be selective who they choose to provide a service to?
I am sure the ACLU is already considering litigation against Tom Ford for his discriminatory practices ()
Great point sister
sc,am I to understand from your quote
"If the church was as it should be then it wouldn't be looking and acting like the world"
that you believe the vast majority of the blood bought church of the living God is carnal and worldly and has little interest in the things of God? That people like yourself who stand for godliness and standards and are against compromise are the exception to rule?
sc, I am curious as to how you are able to tell what happens in multiple churches across our country to be able to make a blanket statement about the church. I can only speak from my own experience. In Georgia I was friends with around six pastors and none of what you assert being true of the church was in anyway common in their churches.
From my experience, I would say that a very minuscule percentage of born again Christians have any idea of what you are aware of concerning the upcoming holiday.
There is nothing wrong with putting children in sports, if anything the Bible supports it (I Corinthians 9:24-27) as a good way to learn self-discipline.
I would like to know how you know that divorce is "common" among Christians? How many happened before they were saved?
Last, I have been in my current church (which also doesn't have the things of which you speak) for a tad over a year. I could tell you the testimony of many members, the physical afflictions with which they suffer, in some cases where they work, their burdens for lost loved ones, things that go on in their families, but I couldn't tell you what anyone of them views on tv other than the local news. Where do you find time to talk with people about such mundane things?