Shadmans thoughts

Just a comment on the homeschooling thing. One doesn't need a 4 year degree to teach one's own children. I think some people think you do, and so don't consider that option. I won't get on my soapbox about this because there are tons of great sites already out there. If someone is interested they should be able to find info about it with little trouble.
 

Just a comment on the homeschooling thing. One doesn't need a 4 year degree to teach one's own children. I think some people think you do, and so don't consider that option. I won't get on my soapbox about this because there are tons of great sites already out there. If someone is interested they should be able to find info about it with little trouble.
 

////////////////////////////
Galations 3:24 says the Law -- in the New Testament -- is still our Tutor. Many pastors still teach from the Old Testament as they should.

Believers in Christ do not follow "the letter" of the Law but rather the "Spirit of the Law." See especially 2 Cor. 3:6 and following, and Galations 5.

When Christ did away with the penalty of the Law for believers (which was eternal death) on the Cross, He did NOT also do away with keeping the "Spirit of the Law" as many seem to falsely portray. Nor did He do away with discipleship and accountability.
////////??????????????????

This sarcasm brought to you by a friend of God. (Wrankles you that I can be one, doesn't it?)

It is your stated distortions of others and their view points that would "wrankles" anyone.
??????????????????????????????????????/
Ron said, Go ahead, yoke yourself to the law. I am yoked to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Isn't Christ in the Law and the Prophets, as well as, the New Testament?


There ain't a law against love, darkness dweller. Or have you understood what all the policies and principles are for?

I never said there was a law against love so I needed be informed that there isn't.

Would Jesus call it loving to "name call" others with derrogatory terms like "darkness dweller as you have been repeatedly doing?

/////////////////////////////////////They preach from the pupit and teach music is not rightous.

They teach that all music is not righteous or they teach that some music is not righteous? Some music isn't righteous though is it? What music did this church say wasn't righteous?

??????????????????????????????????????????


"I highly think my friends many tell me this is something they know they get truth."

It is reasonable to imagine that there are all kinds of people who read Shadman's blog and come up with a wide range of reactions, and some or many of them negative, but don't wish to post those reactions. Just because Shad gets some positive human reactions does not justify all of his views as Biblically oriented, but seemingly he uses (a few?) positive human reactions to justify much of his blog as truth.


"I hate the anti rock and roll Christians."

"Hate" is a very strong word to use here. Would God hate them too? Would God absolutely disagree with anti-rock and roll Christians? Are your interpretations and opinions in absoultely tune with God's, Shadman? Are your biblically unsupported opinions more important than God's?

"Shaking hips was mildly right."

Does God absolutely approve of music styles or tactics that are compromising, borderline, confusing, romantic, or sensual, to some or many in an audience? Do all in an audience interprete and react the way you do, Shadman, to various music styles? Or do some react with ungodly thoughs or ways? Does God shape right and wrong for others around your interpretations and opinions, Shadman?

"I know the vice Pres of Billy Grahams movie production and known him for 25 years. I have toured the offices and spoke to the people that worked there. I ate lunch there many times. I got movies to prove this. I know about the Billy Graham stuff and I know the people that worked for him and their heart. SO having a rock concert for the kids is one aspect of a ministries that reach billions is a start of their work."

So you are saying then that God is only concerned about results and not about the means or process for getting results? If so, that is not biblical.

When teens react to rock concerts with wild screeming, and girls come home with messed up hair and wild hair and thoughts, etc., do these circumstances reflect the orderliness and design of God's character?

"Clothes do not make one a Christian and you do not have to wear a certain thing to be one."

Who said that clothes determine ones Christianity and salvation? But don't clothes reflect ones values for good or ill? Shouldn't believers' clothing reflect godly and Christian values?

"I do not think I need a suit to go to church but clean clothes are well."

What church has told you you need a suit to attend? But if one has or can afford a suit, doesn't it reflect cultural norms and show respect for God, His people, His house, as it does in other areas of culture at, for example, more formal occasions or services? Is it somehow unbiblical to wear a suit or tie to church?

"Rick Warren does not wear ties so if I do not fine. I like warren and his Laid back."

Exactly. Does God like Christian leaders promoting comfortable, convenient "laid back" Christianity? What does "laid back," casual Christianity lead to among Christians and others?

"Makeup for gals is ok I do not use it."

God thinks all forms of "make up" for gals is ok then, but just not for you? What does God think of men wearing make up? Would that be ok? Why or why not, biblically? Doesn't "grace" or "freedom" in Christ allow men to wear make up or nail polish, for examples?

"I wear my hair short and I love long hair on gals but I do not think it is a shame for a man to wear long hair or a gal to have her hair short. I know the verse but it is not a verse to take in context. Hair is what ever you want. Makeup for gals is ok I do not use it. I do not care about rings or jewelry. I think the bible is silent on that so iam going to be to"

Is the Bible also silent about men appearing like women, and women appearing like men? No, it isn't, but according to your comments, Shadman, others could come away with the idea that the Bible is silent about men looking like women, and women looking like men. That is not right.

God made each sex distinct in various ways and our appearances, biblically, should reflect the way God made us. It is liberalism, theological or political, that seeks to erase in many areas the line that divides the sexes.

Who is seemingly trying to make rules or confuse people on this blog and elsewheres? Is God the God of confusion or casual, lukewarm Christianity? Does today's evangelicalism truly reflect Godly values? Should God's values and priorities be reduced simply to matters of human discussion and loose interpretations?

??????????????????????????????????????????????

Seems to me like you are saying that Shadman is weaker and in need of your 'help', darkness dweller.

You are forgetting that the person in question admitted weakness in this area and asked for outside help -- and was compliant till you filled his
head otherwise.

That is EXACTLY what the Levite and the priest said while walking on the road and seeing the man left for dead. Be a good Samaritan.
Don't err on the side of caution.

"To error on the side caution" can either be used for ill or for good. That you find my statement "better to error on the side of caution" as wrongly applied is of course a subjective opinion and does not necessary apply or compare with the Levite's actions in the Good Samaritan example as you state.

?????????????????????????????????????????????

So an open discussion is not desired afterall.

I find it also sad that two of my posts/ responses on the issues have been removed/ censored, and others not even allowed to be posted -- all the while another continuously uses derrogatory personal attacks and those posts remain on-line.

What would Jesus say?

??????????????????????????????????????????


Galations 3:24 says the Law -- in the New Testament -- is still our tutor.

Believers do not follow "the letter" of the Law but rather the "Spirit of the Law." See especially 2 Cor. 3:6 and following, and Galations 5.

When Christ did away with the penalty of the Law (which was eternal death), He did NOT also do away with keeping the "Spirit of the Law." Nor did He do away with discipleship and accountability.

?????????????????????????????????????????????

Yup, you're right. Let's give Christ a piecemeal bride. Hack away and remove all who differ from me.

Neither you or I can give Christ anything but ourselves. And neither can you or I can give Christ a peicemeal bride; isn't "piecemeal bride" an oxymoron?

"Or does God say that all believers should get along Shadow-lurker?"

Why the derrogatory term, Ron? Are you still bitter?

And on the contrary Christ said that He came to bring a sword and his truths will divide even families. So ecumenicism is a good thing to you even if it compromises or nullifies God's truths. Did God find ecumenicism a good thing at the Tower of Babel?


Be afraid. After all, that's the spirit the Lord gives, right? Be very, very separate. Go far, far away.

My legitimate fears are based on, for example, misinterpretations and misapplications like the bitter kind we often find you stating here and elsewheres.

Or do you think God might wish us to be in unity with each other and might not like this overly separating attitude of yours? (No matter how hard you look, betcha you can't find anything, and even if you do, you will misunderstand it!)
;)

So what is "overly separating" to God, Ron? Isn't "separation" is the literal meaning of holyness according to Bible language, Ron?

No, of course not. You alone are God's chosen and are the only one who qualifies to express His word.

Are you saying your derrogatory judgements of my character are absolutely right?

This sarcasm brought to you by a friend of God. (Wrankles you that I can be one, doesn't it?)

Are you suggesting then that God encourages your unedifying, derrogatory kind of sarcism then?

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

They preach from the pupit and teach music is not rightous. I have seen more than one church get caught in this. I had a pal back in the 1990s that had a kid come to me and tell me music I like it bad.

So they have an opinion, as do you. But who's opinion was in keeping with God's and what were their reasons for their opinion. Just because they told you their opinion and you felt offended does not automatically make their opinion wrong or mean it should be stifled, as you seem to suggest.

I am not going to bad mouth churchs

Didn't you just do that and haven't you done that in many of your other comments on your blog?

because I think God uses all churchs and baptist ones to. B ut I think he uses all demonations and all sects of his people.

That doesn't mean that God and others can't hold churches or individuals accountable for what they DO do wrong -- and many ARE doing wrong in many ways.


doesn't Calthlics feed many folks and Lutherns are awesome at world hunger.

Are these the priorities that God gave to the church? In Catholicism and liberal Lutheranism doesn't "feeding the hungry" tend to meet their false "salvation by works" view points?

We need the evangelcals to fight for souls

God gave all believers the priorities of fighting for souls and "growing" (santifying) those saved. It is not a choice between one or the other -- God's command and priority were to accomplish both. But it can not be done when false doctrines or casual Christianity is promoted by leaders, as do Billy Graham and Rick Warren.

and baptists are need for some to find a family and hear the truth keep the rest of us on the narerow way.

Again, it is not one or the other. It is both (or all). God did not divide or split His work of the between denominations.

If it seems like I am double minded I am trying not to be.

Yes, it does seem like you are being double minded for the reasons given above and elsewheres.

I want to express the faults of a systmem I almost got trapped in and MY prospective

They are not faults because you feel offended and say they are.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Shadman, you have set up an irrelevant test . I never said that those music styles are (all) wrong -- but I did counter your assertion that there is (absolutely) nothing wrong with them because their styles are not found in the Bible (and I never said either that their styles are found in the Bible).

What I did suggest or state was that there are principles in the Bible which enable one to judge any styles or any piece of music's worldiness, holyness, or appropriateness in various arenas.

And I also said that when in question it is better to error on the side of caution, so that others are not made to stumble in their walk with the Lord (even if it has no ill effects on oneself).

For example, the word "trinity" is not found in the Bible -- does that mean we can not discuss or judge its implied existance, or rightness?

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Fine in your church have a stand but do not make me listen to it. I am not going to stop my music stand and go to your bapitst church because of your stand on music.

How does a church "make" anyone else listen to their kind of music when attendence is voluntary? What church "makes" (forces?) anyone else "stop their own music stand?" What Baptist church makes or forces anyone to attend?

Seems as though you are setting up non-existant factors so that churches that disagree with you can be bad mouthed.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Tamara, you seem to have wrongly interpreted that I promoted the King James as the only legitimate translation.

And is "self inventorying" the only means of personal accountability that the BIble promotes?

Ron, your convenient, subjective human assessment of "ZERO" in several instances is only true and accurate if one assumes, as you do, that the one who disagrees with you is biblically wrong, and is the sole one doing the arguing and dividing. Others might justifiably have a different interpretation than yours. And were my comments "arguing" as you interprete, perhaps wrongly, or were they perhaps "contending for the faith" as in Jude 3-4? Are your interpretations and applications of my comments infallible just because you can quote selective verses from Scripture and leave out others pertinent?

Yes, biblically, there should be harmony within the body, but not at the sacrifice of doctrine or other biblical principles and policies.

And I hope you are not saying that those in positions of leadership within a church or another public arena are "weaker" brothers and are therefore above questioning or criticizing. Or are you saying that Shad is a "weaker" brother and therefore his comments are beyond criticism? Or perhaps you saying that you are a "weaker" brother and therefore above criticism?

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
never said you couldn't wear a tie or coat. You are implying that others have to dress up to YOUR standards. Is Of course, you can't see that right now.

Were they soley "my" standards as you erroneously imply and accuse, Ron?

But, wear your culturally conforming attire. I have no problem with it. I know that God is more interested in the inside of the cup than the outside.

I don't limit God's interests to the inside or outside of the cup as you seem to be again falsely accusing me of, neither does the Bible, our standard. Is there a pattern in the Bible that shows that we are to generally defy legitimate culture standards in order to promote the Bible and Christ?

You can go ahead and keep being anxious about how others dress. I wait for you to wash the inside of your cup.

Again, you falsely accuse me of being "anxious." And, again, are your other interpretations and descriptions of myself and others infallible? Should readers automatically assume your opinions are correct? I find your false accusations and comments of my views "divisive" -- perhaps the Lord does too.

And, again, YOU are the one personally setting the generalized standard for dress, etc., as "choice" for others or all (even if it departs from cultural or gender norms). Does God generally promote such? So it is not that I 'solely' have set (unbiblical) standards for others as you accuse and erroneoulsy state, but that you too have set standards (based on personal choice and freedom) for others, as well. It just is that your interpretations and standards are different from others'.

God is more interested in my heart than whether or not I dress the way you think I should.
God is more interested in your heart than whether or not I believe it is your choice.
Legalism adheres to the letter of the law.
There is no law against love.
Praying.

Again, it's YOUR interpretations made on my behalf that are at fault.

There is no law against love.

Again, your erroneous, and ungodly aspersions is that others who disagree with your questionable interpretations are unloving. This is a cheapshot and common illegitimate tactic of liberalism.


But to get to the church doors, now THAT is another matter.

You are suggesting, Ron, the person at issue only had one means to get to the church doors and was incapable of finding other means for himself? On the contrary, you know better than that.

You are suggesting the person at issue was incapable of learning and meeting common standards of appearance, cleanliness, and common norms of social conduct -- ones that can better minister to others instead of offending others? You yourself never refused the party at issue for any reason?

We thought better of the party at issue; we thought he could be edified regarding these concerns.\

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

"I highly think my friends many tell me this is something they know they get truth."

It is reasonable to imagine that there are all kinds of people who read Shadman's blog and come up with a wide range of reactions, and some or many of them negative, but don't wish to post those reactions. Just because Shad gets some positive human reactions does not justify all of his views as Biblically oriented, but seemingly he uses (a few?) positive human reactions to justify much of his blog as truth.


"I hate the anti rock and roll Christians."

"Hate" is a very strong word to use here. Would God hate them too? Would God absolutely disagree with anti-rock and roll Christians? Are your interpretations and opinions in absoultely tune with God's, Shadman? Are your biblically unsupported opinions more important than God's?

"Shaking hips was mildly right."

Does God absolutely approve of music styles or tactics that are compromising, borderline, confusing, romantic, or sensual, to some or many in an audience? Do all in an audience interprete and react the way you do, Shadman, to various music styles? Or do some react with ungodly thoughs or ways? Does God shape right and wrong for others around your interpretations and opinions, Shadman?

"I know the vice Pres of Billy Grahams movie production and known him for 25 years. I have toured the offices and spoke to the people that worked there. I ate lunch there many times. I got movies to prove this. I know about the Billy Graham stuff and I know the people that worked for him and their heart. SO having a rock concert for the kids is one aspect of a ministries that reach billions is a start of their work."

So you are saying then that God is only concerned about results and not about the means or process for getting results? If so, that is not biblical.

When teens react to rock concerts with wild screeming, and girls come home with messed up hair and wild hair and thoughts, etc., do these circumstances reflect the orderliness and design of God's character?

"Clothes do not make one a Christian and you do not have to wear a certain thing to be one."

Who said that clothes determine ones Christianity and salvation? But don't clothes reflect ones values for good or ill? Shouldn't believers' clothing reflect godly and Christian values?

"I do not think I need a suit to go to church but clean clothes are well."

What church has told you you need a suit to attend? But if one has or can afford a suit, doesn't it reflect cultural norms and show respect for God, His people, His house, as it does in other areas of culture at, for example, more formal occasions or services? Is it somehow unbiblical to wear a suit or tie to church?

"Rick Warren does not wear ties so if I do not fine. I like warren and his Laid back."

Exactly. Does God like Christian leaders promoting comfortable, convenient "laid back" Christianity? What does "laid back," casual Christianity lead to among Christians and others?

"Makeup for gals is ok I do not use it."

God thinks all forms of "make up" for gals is ok then, but just not for you? What does God think of men wearing make up? Would that be ok? Why or why not, biblically? Doesn't "grace" or "freedom" in Christ allow men to wear make up or nail polish, for examples?

"I wear my hair short and I love long hair on gals but I do not think it is a shame for a man to wear long hair or a gal to have her hair short. I know the verse but it is not a verse to take in context. Hair is what ever you want. Makeup for gals is ok I do not use it. I do not care about rings or jewelry. I think the bible is silent on that so iam going to be to"

Is the Bible also silent about men appearing like women, and women appearing like men? No, it isn't, but according to your comments, Shadman, others could come away with the idea that the Bible is silent about men looking like women, and women looking like men. That is not right.

God made each sex distinct in various ways and our appearances, biblically, should reflect the way God made us. It is liberalism, theological or political, that seeks to erase in many areas the line that divides the sexes.

Who is seemingly trying to make rules or confuse people on this blog and elsewheres? Is God the God of confusion or casual, lukewarm Christianity? Does today's evangelicalism truly reflect Godly values? Should God's values and priorities be reduced simply to matters of human discussion and loose interpretations?

//????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

"Jesus can use a pretty gal to lead a male to himself and Jesus has used petra to lead folks to his name. I know a man that came to Jesus in a Ken Copland service but I think Copland is not a solid bible teacher."

But because someone may be led to Christ through a rock group or an unbiblical teacher like Copland, does not mean that God condones everything that the rock group or Copeland say, plays musically, preforms, or does on or off stage. God will hold a rock group or an unbiblical teacher responsibile one way or another if they are errant or careless in their presentations.

"So I do not think music is worldly in style."

There are absolutely no ungodly music styles? Would God agree with that statement?
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

First I would point out to Shadman that it is really hard to know who is saying what in this post of his; where were you quoting others and where were you stating your own views?

But beyond that, where does the Bible suggest that Bible doctrines should be compromised or sacrificed for sake of denominational or church unity and ecumenicism -- which is the (false) spirit of our age? See 1 Tim. 3:15 and the Laodicean church of Rev. 3.

Isn't ecumenicism (aka, denominaltional and church cooperation or unity ) the main feature of the false religion and the false prophet in the end times, who gives worship to the Anti-Christ? See, for example, Rev. 13:8 and Rev. 17 & 18.

2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." One can not deny here then that doctrine is a priority for salvation, for discipleship, and for moral living over "good deeds."

Unfortunately, many have seemingly bought into liberal theology which is not much different at least theoretically from liberal politics -- where amoral (to immoral) socialism, politics, government, and good works (e.g., "for the poor") have replaced God, Christ, the Bible, biblical doctrines, and moral living.

The Bible commands that in cases of false religious teaching, believers ARE to expose it and separate (the literal meaning of holyness) from those unrepentant, apostazing leaders, organizations, churches, and denominations that continue to teach unbiblically: 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1; 2 John 9 - 11; Galatians 1:8-9; I Tim. 6:20-21; Matt. 18:15-18; 1 Cor. 15:1-13; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15.

These are Biblical principles that neither Rick Warren or Billy Graham are following, especially when Graham has a history of allowing leaders and churches to participate, on the platform or in counseling new believers, in his crusades which do NOT believe in the deity of Christ, or the full inspiration of Scripture, or who teach a salvation by faith and works, etc. Christian leaders are not just responsible for spreading the simple gospel message of salvation, but are also responsible for further biblically discipling those saved in the doctrines of the faith/ Bible. See "the Great Command" in Matt. 28: 18 -20 and also Acts 2:42.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

logies -- my earlier comment addressed to Tamara should have referenced Gen. 3:21, not Gen. 3:32.

"God NEVER looks at the outside of you. He looked at the leaders of his day and said to them get off the law and into grace."

Where did God say in the Bible to "get off the law and into grace?" Did God negate today's believers from observing the "Spirit of the Law." Doesn't the New Testament teachings mainly negate the "penalty" of (disobeying) the Law, which is eternal death for every sinner?

"I am calling you to get into the grace of Jesus." "Grace" in the Bible is literally the unmerited favor of Christ for salvation and it is His enabling power to serve Him faithfully and maturely the way He said, not the way we find more comfortable or convenient.

" If your going to say you got to have a dress code to go to a church I am going to tell you to show me in the bible."

When, Shadman, did a church ever tell you had to dress a certain way to get through the church doors?

" It’s a man made thing and adding to the bible is a thing that can lead to hell."

Any sin can lead to hell if one does not have faith in Christ and is repentant to God.

" I left the Baptist chur5ch because law was truth and grace was gone."

Should we all believe that you have correctly represented this Baptist church?

" I am into your inside and not how you look. Jesus loves you for your inside."

Yes, Jesus loves you for what is on the inside (which is also provided to every submissive individual by His grace), i.e., at our motives and attitudes, but He also looks at the outside, i.e., our words and behaviors, and how obediently we apply His commands, policies, principles. And there are plenty of Bible verses to verify that Jesus looks also looks on the outside, as well as, the inside of a person.

But it is often hard for a Christian church or other institution or person to "look on an individual's heart" -- so often the institution has to look on or judge the externals, including ones words -- which every Christian should use thoughtfully and judiciously.

Gen. 3:21 is a good example that shows that God is concerned about personal dress/clothing. And most good commentaries say that when God found Adam and Eve in the garden after they had sinned, He was formost concerned about their disobedience, not their nakedness. But concerning their nakedness, God dressed Adam and Eve with garments that not only covered not just their private parts, but that covered them from their necks to knees. This seemingly is a good Genesis "beginning" standard for Christians even today.

And music that makes people want to wiggle their hips, etc., or excite hormones doesn't seem to be very sound or biblical either. It isn't worldly? Are there no other types or styles of God honoring music or clothing available for use? And where there are legitimate questions, shouldn't a person or church error on the side of caution (and decency)?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

"I mean one place teaches the Bob Jones series and that school is not to me trustworthy. And Granite City is a place that tries to suck you in to their church. Not good."

I wonder how God views these derrogatory statements made about other institutions claiming His name -- especially when no specific evidence is given for making these derrogatory comments?

No church can "suck anyone in" unless they do so by deceit and by ones personal ignorance of the Word of God. Where was this church deceitful?
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????//

What does God think of the King James Version? Does God ignor the King James version and state that it is completely irrelevant for today? If some people relate to the King James version best, should it be completely ignored or disallowed by Shadman?

Are we not to strive to be mature in our Christian faith? Doesn't Phil. 4:8 say that we are to continually strive for the things listed there in order to be mature?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa

"List me a thin g in the bible that tells me I am more saved than you because of dress."

Shadman, you're missing the point. The way one dresses of course does not define who is saved and who is not. However, the way one dresses does reflect on ones beliefs and ones personal sanctification (i.e., ones maturity, ones respect for others, and ones obedience to biblical principles or even perhaps respect for prevaling cultural standards). That is, Shadman, you seem to have salvation and santification mixed up with each other.

You said, "Jesus did not wear a tie and Paul did not."

How did Jesus and Paul dress? Are you saying believers should all dress like Jesus and Paul? Or are you saying that Jesus and Paul didn't follow common cultural standards of dress, cleanliness, etc.?

Don't the Christian schools, churches, and other Christian institutions of today have a right and obligation to set standards of dress, etc., that help to further respect and orderliness, etc., within the institutions and according to the understandings, interpretations, and vision that God has given them? If an individual disagrees with those given codes, they are not forced to be involved with the said institution are they? If the institution has a differing set of rules or policies than the individual, does that make the institution unbibical or evil?


Tamara, doesn't the outside of the cup reflect to some or great degree the inside of the cup to fellow human beings, as you even agreed? Note that in Gen. 3: 32 and Matt 6:28-30, et al., God IS concerned about the outside of the cup (as well as the inside).

Ron, what point are you trying to make about Matt. 6:28-30? Seemingly the verses say not to be "anxious" about clothing, but seemingly do not say that believers shouldn't be thinking about clothing or dress at all.

Regarding your reference to James 4, these verses are about slandering others (see any good commentary) and are not about dress codes, so then James 4 does not seem to be relevant here.

"Do not make others follow what YOU believe. Jesus said very harsh things to those who did such and I know that is not where you want to be."

To the above statement, I would reply that it is you who seems to be attempting to discredit others' Biblical interpretations and personal applications -- so that YOU can set up your own rules to which you wish to make others conform.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV