| Author |
Message |
    
greg_s
Intermediate Member
Username: greg_s
Post Number: 297
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 64.12.117.202
| | Posted on Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 5:36 pm: | 
|
TITLE: “A Pants Primer” (Drafted 11/24/06 and based on 1996 greg_s research.) At this point it is not too late to skip this series as you may already find it boring.
INTRODUCTION: We hope what follows is clear and complete enough. If not, we can amend, as personally desired, to restrict intentional public misunderstanding, at a later date. The Ex’r Staff have often declared (paraphrasing)…Though they used to believe as we do they have moved beyond what the Body of Christ believes through subsequent independent study. We count this as merely another Ex’r Staff obfuscation/lie. Proof of this is: If the Ex’r Staff had once believed like we do but don’t anymore because they know more about God’s New Testament Law, through their subsequent independent study, they would have a relevant response to any greg_s post and be able to prove wrong any greg_s post to date. To date they don’t (have a relevant response or prove greg_s wrong) so they didn’t (arrive at their current beliefs thorough independent study before, during or after they broke fellowship with our Christian Church). The Ex’r Staff argument, though possibly oversimplified, is as follows: I believe what I believe now for the following reason(s)…Merely because I want to; just ask me and I will tell you--over and over and over again. The Ex’r Staff believe any clear thinker will/would count this behavior as an impenetrable citadel of truth and logic and don’t anyone dare think or state differently. As a bonus, not only do the Ex’r Staff not have a Biblical argument/justification for all their non-revolutionary-recurring-every-generation doctrines but they routinely fail to provide verifiable proof for their wild accusations they routinely direct toward members of the Body of Christ…e.g. adultery, embezzlement, child molestation et al. The Ex’r Staff, being go getters, are not content to merely receive an accusation against individuals still within the Body of Christ so they search for accusations against individuals still within the Body of Christ. Then rush to share with us their newfound third, fourth and more hand witness against us in their thoroughly para-Biblical manner. This observed Ex’r Staff behavior is very para-Christian, which is all the rage among the haut monde Ex’r Staff on FACTNet. We have known for years that the Ex’r Staff are para-Christians, part of the worldwide para-Church and have a para-Biblical view of God’s New Testament Law and have said as much, in different ways, many times on FACTNet. We were merely surprised the Ex’r Staff would finally admit to this (being para-Christian/Church/Bible); maybe there is hope for them yet? Yes, we often attempt to shame/goad the Ex’r Staff into a relevant response; we really would like to be definitively shown where we are wrong (or even merely definitively shown where what the Ex'r Staff routinely aver is right) with any topic we have chosen to discuss on FACTNet during the past three plus years of our posting history. Do we digress? Obfuscate? Would you like to change the subject? Continuing, it is not possible for any woman to wear pants, as an outermost garment, modestly. Some of what follows is/are the reason(s) why. One proof of properly fitted women’s dress slacks being inappropriate for any woman concerned with lasciviousness et al is the women’s dress slacks donned by Katharine Houghton part way into the film “Guess who’s coming to dinner?”; they are properly fitted, obviously being worn by a woman and inarguably lascivious et al. When we use the term mature in this greg_s series we are not referring to age but we are referring to a Christian woman who is not a novice Christian. At this point it is not too late to skip this series as you may already find it boring.
“A PANTS PRIMER” CONTINUED… |
victorjohanson
Senior Member
Username: victorjohanson
Post Number: 1422
Registered: 9-2005
Posted From: 216.67.57.23
| | Posted on Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 5:47 pm: |
|
Didn't you already do this once, Greg? Will you repeat that unforgettable phrase "snuggly against her vulva" this time? Such gems provide oases of entertainment in the midst of your vast desert of rambling and mind numbing prose.
Your genius for exposing NTCC as the bizarre organization it is while masquerading as a loyal member is appreciated by those of us who don't have the stamina to maintain such a charade. Mad props to you, comrade. |
michael_ismyfirstname
New member
Username: michael_ismyfirstname
Post Number: 20
Registered: 11-2007
Posted From: 75.88.253.100
| | Posted on Sunday, December 16, 2007 - 3:48 pm: |
|
Greg_s "Yes, we often attempt to shame/goad the Ex’r Staff into a relevant response"
Is shaming and goading the only way you are able to progress a discussion?
Maybe its you who are shameful.
(Message edited by michael_ismyfirstname on December 16, 2007) |
michael_ismyfirstname
New member
Username: michael_ismyfirstname
Post Number: 21
Registered: 11-2007
Posted From: 75.88.253.100
| | Posted on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 1:54 am: |
|
I will help you progress your discussion Greg.
So its not lascivious for a man to wear pants...but it is if a women does?
How can men where pants, as an outermost garment, modestly?
Are men who don't where robes lascivious? |
ctyankee
Intermediate Member
Username: ctyankee
Post Number: 186
Registered: 4-2007
Posted From: 69.244.208.162
| | Posted on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 10:43 pm: |
|
It doesn't matter if the men wear pants immodestly, because in Greg's world only men lust, not women. Now if a man were to wear today the garments that people wore in Jesus' day (i.e. robes and sandles)they would be preached against as effeminent. So who is interpreting the holiness standard- God or man? |
charger
New member
Username: charger
Post Number: 4
Registered: 12-2007
Posted From: 71.38.28.127
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - 2:01 pm: |
|
You guys need to read the article "That which pertaineth." You can find it at actseighteen.com
There are also good articles about jewlery, etc.
Read them if you have the courage to listen to a well articulated view that is different from what is preached at NTCC.
Notice I said what is PREACHED.
Has anyone on this site ever able to recall a time when they were taught "The holiness standard" from the Bible. I am not just talking about a little skim coat teaching, but a straight up from the Bible detailed teaching? |
greg_s
Intermediate Member
Username: greg_s
Post Number: 306
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 205.188.117.202
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - 5:16 pm: |
|
CONTINUING “A PANTS PRIMER”…
ASIDE: victorjohanson has shared he routinely put a dress over his prepubescent daughter’s snow suit when he was a Pastor (Pastor’s are Biblically charged to model/teach God’s New Testament Law) in Alaska while still actively involved in the small part of the Body of Christ that is our Christian Church. This personifies even more galloping Ex’r Staff ignorance. Or, more directly…victorjohanson, even then, had a self limited and skewed understanding of God’s New Testament Law that continues to this day (as he has demonstrated online). Not wearing ‘that which pertaineth’ to the opposite sex is one Old Testament Command that was not carried over into God’s New Testament Law. Yet, we always enjoyed victorjohanson’s classes when he was a professor at our non-accredited Bible College. Mainly because they were much lighter fair; a welcome break from the deeper teaching of the other non-accredited Bible College classes we enrolled in…proof of this is a quick review of anyone’s notes from any of the classes that victorjohanson taught when compared to the notes from any other professor’s class at our non-accredited Bible College. Were you aware that marijuana use is legal in Alaska? Just ask victorjohanson and he will tell you. You may recognise victorjohanson as one of the few drug (and alcohol) use advocates on FACTNet for the Body of Christ who routinely staggers onto FACTNet to spew his 2 Zimbabwe dollars worth. You may also recognise him as a serial online speech suppressor and an actively ministering High Priest of ‘The Good Enough Church of the Great Outdoors.’ His potential partial ‘Order of Service’ on any given Sunday is: Lie on ground; relax, close eyes; Inhale (hold it), exhale; inhale (hold it), exhale. Open eyes; look at the sky; inhale (hold it), exhale; inhale (hold it), exhale. Repeat all day. Continuing…Refusing to put anything but a dress on a prepubescent female, even when impractical, is a result of the ignorance maintained as a result of being aggressively incurious regarding God’s New Testament Law. This Ex’r Staff behavior (being aggressively incurious) is understandable/predictable since God’s New Testament Law contradicts most of what the Ex’r Staff would like the Body of Christ to believe; as we have observed online. Like the Chinaman, it kicks them. Stated differently to further increase clarity: The Ex’r Staff have some choices, three of which are…remain incurious or understand and/or change. Continuing, a prepubescent child is unable to be lascivious et al so how they are dressed is a non-issue. Though some adults are aroused by children this is not the child’s fault…even if a child is naked in public. END ASIDE. At this point it is not too late to skip this series as you may already find it boring.
“A PANTS PRIMER” CONTINUED… |
pelfdaddy
Advanced Member
Username: pelfdaddy
Post Number: 967
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 76.211.4.70
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - 6:19 pm: |
|
greg,
Women routinely do such things as putting a dress over a snow suit to their daughters because they have been instructed to so so by the "Women of God". I am relieved to see you are in agreement with me that the Women of God of NTCC are engaged in "galloping ignorance". |
pelfdaddy
Advanced Member
Username: pelfdaddy
Post Number: 969
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 76.211.4.70
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - 6:28 pm: |
|
Greg,
The acts 18 thing is old news, and does not speak for anyone here. No outside information is needed to make you look stupid. Go ahead and post your boring garbage, and then leave. |
victorjohanson
Senior Member
Username: victorjohanson
Post Number: 1453
Registered: 9-2005
Posted From: 66.223.233.130
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - 6:40 pm: |
|
Yes, Greg, such sartorial silliness was perpertrated with the explicit knowledge and approval of your leader and fake apostle, RW Davis. Thankfully we've escaped his orbit and no longer look to him for permission or approval of our lifestyle choices. My daughter now wears her pants unencumbered by overlying dresses, and overall we're much saner and happier.
For enhanced mental health, I wholeheartedly recommend immediate escape from NTCC. It's evident that you are sorely in need of relief. |
pelfdaddy
Advanced Member
Username: pelfdaddy
Post Number: 973
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 76.211.4.70
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 26, 2007 - 6:59 pm: |
|
You are way too slow, Greg. I don't want to read some idiocy copied from some brainwashed pentecostal fool like your apostle-with-the-yo-yo-dieter's-fat-bloated-belly.
CLEAR, STATED COMMANDMENT OR PROHIBITION IN THE 'NEW TESTAMENT LAW (you wish), PLEASE.
Or else shut up. |
pelfdaddy
Advanced Member
Username: pelfdaddy
Post Number: 981
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 69.208.3.123
| | Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 10:59 am: |
|
I demand a reference that says it is sinful for a woman to wear pants, greg.
You pretend to speak in tongues and cast out devils and heal sickness, all because of your righteouss stance on pants! Your sex-pervert hillbilly pastor is jut like every other cult leader, medium, mentalist, palm reader and astrologer out there.
Tell me where your opinion is baacked up with a direct prohibition you spoon-fed freak. |
pelfdaddy
Advanced Member
Username: pelfdaddy
Post Number: 983
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 69.208.5.19
| | Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 2:02 pm: |
|
Hey greg,
You never did send me a link to that picture of the minimum allowable standard for holiness. I want that picture NOW, greg. Let's have it you sniveling coward!
Is it holy to send a woman out of the room in front of two hundred people because she is wearing a hat that the "Man of God" doesn't like? Is it holy to terrorize everybody in the room because their souls depend on the "Man of God"s approval? Is it holy to keep people under such control and psychological conditioning that they hate and despise you but dare not act on their conscience? Is it holy to extort money? Is it holy to shout down those who disagree with you and make an example of any who do not conform to your wishes?
NTCC is a GANG! Nothing more. And Roger "the pig" Davis is a crime boss.
Davis bores his listeners to the brink of tears while raking them across a burning pit of coals because they are not sacrificing themselves enough to fulfill his vision of an empire. He is content to force everyone to kiss his fat butt and call it love, rather than be a real human being and earn the respect he gets.
If he's the Lord's anointed, then I'm Martina Navratilova. Either way...I'll touch him as much as I want.
Chapter and verse, greg...or go away and leave these people alone. They are trying to get a few things off their chests, and your sick diversions and defenses of that evil piece of cr*p you call 'paassss-TOR' are starting to get to me.
Just a little.
How 'bout telling "the Lord's anointed" not to "touch" fourteen-year-old girls and other people's wives for a change? You know, just to shake things up a bit. Or how 'bout just throw him in jail and wire his jaw permanently shut?
"That's it right there; you hate the holiness message!"
You're right--I do. Because it is a cruel and wicked hoax that keeps the distended bellies of liars like Roger "the pig" Davis stuffed with cherry pie and ice cream.
Chapter and verse, you preening peacock! I'm through being an ambassador with you punks. Out with your proof texts if you have any!
Sorry I had to sugar-coat things, but hey... |
bro_derrick
Senior Member
Username: bro_derrick
Post Number: 1967
Registered: 9-2005
Posted From: 70.196.255.232
| | Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Oh, I didn't know Bryan's beef was with you. I thought it was with me for 'going too far'.
You mean Davis' weight loss-gain-loss-gain wasn't by the Holy Ghost either, but just another yo-yo manner of his??
I remember that people were even emulating his weight periods in order to be in step with God.
I believe Davis purposely changed his wieght time and time again simply to jerk around people who followed him that closely.
One thing to understand about cult-Leaders like Davis: on the one hand they want people to do whatever they say, but on the other hand they really do despise Yes-Men (I.e. Company Men).
I mean, if you were Davis, would you have any respect for people that stupidly did whatever he said? I mean, He KNOWS he's a fraud for profit, and can't stand the Idiots that don't KNOW that, even if they are useful... to a point.
I no longer became useful when I idiotically began to turn in his prizewinners for doctrinal and program transgressions. (He liked it, I suppose, When I turned in folks like Mick. But not folks like Bailey. Bailey's become a devil in pants that gets attendance, cash, and service. Mick was too good-hearted to win at that.)
Davis probably has more respect for me now, even as the Emboodiment of Evil and Personyfication of the devil on Factnet...
But, the respect is in NO WAY AT ALL reciprocated, because he truly is a bogus user, pusher, and destroyer of good sheep. (Real devils in pants deserve no respect at all. Indeed such false ministers deserve double-dishonor for what they wilfully do...) |
pelfdaddy
Advanced Member
Username: pelfdaddy
Post Number: 985
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 76.211.19.11
| | Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 5:14 pm: |
|
Well, greg, you pinheaded freak? Where is this vaunted argument of yours? Where are the direct prohibitions you no doubt have at your fingertips?
You're just like that butt-kisser Kekel, who told me what punks Steave Dorsie and his wife were until I left the borg. Now he probably calls him "Brother" and smiles upon him as he sits in the first three rows at the phony so-called "conference".
You're like that jerk Phil Kinson, who likes to be the bossman and scream at people, who says that "guilt is good" and intimidates people into "getting with the program". He'll convince you to buy a SelectComfort bed so he can get a referral check, then he'll come to your house and yak all night about his favorite places to eat.
Or that lame-o LD Jones, who'll promise to back you up when you discover the borg's financial crimes, then stab you in the kidneys when the time comes to stand up, then lie about you when you leave, point to his pig pastor and yell "We see Jesus!"
Or George Jordan, the slimey creep who can't keep his tongue in his mouth while his master Davis is there to throw him doggie treats. He'll buy a car from you and never pay you for it, then preach about how Davis is one of the 24 elders around the throne.
What did you think greg, when Davis the pig said "You don't have to pray, 'cause I'm gonna pray for you. You don't have to believe, 'cause I'm gonna believe for you. Do you believe I am a man of God and that God will do what I ask? Then reach out your hands toward me, and I am going to pray FOR you." ???? Well?
You're like Dave Teiman, whose whole life is wrapped up in becoming a board member and getting "one of those RED chairs". Or Tom Wright, or Bradeen, or any of the other jerks who can't wait to be IN CONTROL of somebody so they can abuse them, rip them off, make a move on their wife, and pretend to be God's Man.
While you're at it greg, why not say "Shonda-da-courra" every time you post something so we will know that it's from God? Don't you know that's how it's done? You pestilent twit!
Same goes for Dave Nelson and the rest of you anonymous punks.
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRAPPED IN YOUR CHURCH RIGHT NOW WHO ARE AFRAID TO VOICE THEIR DISGUST WITH DAVIS AND HIS WAYS BECAUSE THEY FEAR THEY WILL LOSE THEIR FAMILIES!!!
There are people out here now who are afraid to lay out the case against him because they still fear his reach, and are still conditioned to tremble at the prospect of touching "the Lord's anointed". Women who have been shamed for life, who were fondled as girls, or who lost everything when they were seduced by a man who took advantage of his supposed power over their souls. |
greg_s
Intermediate Member
Username: greg_s
Post Number: 339
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 205.188.117.202
| | Posted on Sunday, January 06, 2008 - 2:49 am: |
|
CONTINUING “A PANTS PRIMER”…
INTRODUCTION CONTINUED: All justifiers of pants wearing women eventually get around to or even sometimes start with the premise that women’s dress slacks are tailored for women so are therefore okay. Though odd reasoning, this does show part of the mad scramble for any justification (Biblical or otherwise) for being a pants wearing woman. God’s objection to the New Testament woman wearing pants is not that pants are a ‘man’s’ garment but because (again) it is not possible for any woman to wear pants, as an outermost garment, in mixed gender public settings, modestly. Proof of this is partially contained in the Katharine Houghton example above and the “WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A WOMAN MOVES” and “MORE OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A WOMAN MOVES” greg_s paragraphs coming below. This Ex’r Staff position also exhibits willful ignorance of any historical perspective. The ‘modern’ cut of women’s dress slacks is the cut of men’s mainstream dress slacks before the 1970’s. E.g. high waisted (waistband of the slacks up at the elbows) and pleated in the front. For an example of this observe the dress slacks worn by Fred MacMurray in any movie or television show he ever appeared in. Or, if you would prefer a slightly more modern example observe the dress slacks of John Cleese’s in any episode of the 1975 or 1979 season of “Fawltey Towers.” Stated differently, to further restrict intentional misunderstanding, in the not so distant past when women first started wearing dress slacks they wore slacks right out of their brother/dad/husband’s closet (see many movies from the 1950’s). Even after women started wearing pants en masse in the 20th century they still sometimes turned to their brother/dad/husband’s closet even though properly fitted slacks were available for them. This ‘look’ was popularized in the 1950’s with the pants rolled up and an un-tucked men’s dress shirt with collar and cuffs turned up as a part of the ensemble. Women also wore pants tailored for them but styled after men’s dress slacks--high waisted (waistband of the slacks up at the elbows) and pleated in the front. Then men gradually changed the cut of their mainstream dress slacks by lowering the waistband to the belly button. Interestingly, though hardly surprising, the waistband on properly fitted women’s dress slacks is also lowering. So what is the justification for pant’s wearing women again? Women, concerned with being lascivious et al, will not wear dress slacks; not because they pertain to a man (again, this is Old Testament Law) but (again) because it is not possible for any woman to wear pants, as an outermost garment, in public mixed gender settings, modestly. At this point it is not too late to skip this series as you may already find it boring.
“A PANTS PRIMER” CONTINUED… |
victorjohanson
Junior Member
Username: victorjohanson
Post Number: 36
Registered: 12-2007
Posted From: 66.230.84.115
| | Posted on Sunday, January 06, 2008 - 3:49 am: |
|
"At this point it is not too late to skip this series as you may already find it boring."
Greg, you're right, it is terribly boring; however, your encyclopedic fashion knowledge leads me to believe you missed your calling when they were casting "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy." I'm sure you aren't homosexual, but you're definitely queer, so you wouldn't really have had to lie to meet the qualifications. Just a bit of NTCC-style truth-twisting; you know how it's done.
That would no doubt have been way more lucrative than a cameltoe-spotting gig with The Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice over in Saudi Arabia, the other job for which your talents are particularly suited. I don't think they'd let you bring your bible there, but with your fundamentalist spirit, why, you'd fit right in with Omar and Abdullah.
BTW, how is that little OB-Gyn hobby of yours going? Been poking around any interesting plumbing lately? Maybe you could elaborate for us; we know how much you enjoy that. |
greg_s
Intermediate Member
Username: greg_s
Post Number: 345
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 64.12.117.202
| | Posted on Monday, January 07, 2008 - 2:32 pm: |
|
CONTINUING “A PANTS PRIMER”…
OUR APOLOGY: As you choose to read the portions of scripture referenced in the next paragraph, you will be capable of seeing many other observed/observable Ex’r Staff traits/behaviors, extraneous to their argument with themselves over Christian women’s wear, are also condemned by God’s New Testament Law. This was serendipitous, not intentional. Please don’t think we are piling on (God’s New Testament Law has a tendency to pile onto the intractable…sin is like french fries and/or potato chips, a person doesn’t usually partake of just one), the Body of Christ can’t change, doesn’t change, doesn’t massage et al what God’s New Testament Law clearly condemns; in this case Christian women being lascivious, wanton, filthy and lacking modesty and chastity. Contrary to what you may have been led to believe by the Ex’r Staff, all garments are not created equal, God does care what we wear and the standards of the Body of Christ for women’s and men’s wear is based entirely upon God’s New Testament Law. Specifically what constitutes lasciviousness, wantonness, filthiness and having a Holy Ghost directed awareness of when we potentially lack modesty and chastity in our dress and/or manner. Also, this series of greg_s articles does not address women’s tops, men’s tops, men’s pants et al. These are inarguably separate issues and we are not interested in discussing them at this time until we thoroughly refute the Ex’r Staff’s non-position regarding pants on women as an outermost garment in public mixed gender settings with this series. (ADDED 12/24/2007) Yes, we know we already completely and incontrovertibly refuted the Ex’r Staff’s non-position regarding pants on women as an outermost garment in public mixed gender settings over on Brother Brian’s “Splitting Hairs” page but that was only with a few extracts from this full article as we stated before. We want to post the Body of Christ’s position on pants wearing women here for ease of use and further complete destruction of more Ex’r Staff ex’rgesis. (END ADDED 12/24/2007) At this point it is not too late to skip this series as you may already find it boring.
“A PANTS PRIMER” CONTINUED… |
pelfdaddy
Senior Member
Username: pelfdaddy
Post Number: 1009
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 166.128.77.151
| | Posted on Monday, January 07, 2008 - 11:06 pm: |
|
Greg,
Your voluminous didacticism and profligate use of two-dimensional space only serve to conceal a severe failure on your part to specifically identify the critical link that would equate a specific garment with 'filthiness', apart from that authority claimed by RW Davis as part of his presumption that "God put me here to tell you what sin is", so that you ought not to be alarmed at our intellectual density when we remain tentatively unconvinced that such a linkage actually exists within the bounds of reality in general, or of the received text in particular. |
michael_ismyfirstname
New member
Username: michael_ismyfirstname
Post Number: 23
Registered: 11-2007
Posted From: 72.172.42.141
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 08, 2008 - 3:52 pm: |
|
men, concerned with being lascivious et al, will not wear dress slacks; not because they pertain to a woman (again, this is Old Testament Law) but (again) because it is not possible for any man to wear pants, as an outermost garment, in public mixed gender settings, modestly.
p.s. Don't look upon the Sodom or Gomorrah of women wearing pants in public mixed gender settings unless you want to be turned into a pillar of salt for looking and longing after the pants.
look, behold I saw the the harlot on the the Beast wearing pants. |
michael_ismyfirstname
New member
Username: michael_ismyfirstname
Post Number: 25
Registered: 11-2007
Posted From: 72.172.42.141
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 08, 2008 - 11:00 pm: |
|
I don't automatically assume a women sleeps around and is not chaste because she wears pants.
a women wearing pants, is not the same as a women having promiscuous sex. |
charger
Junior Member
Username: charger
Post Number: 47
Registered: 12-2007
Posted From: 71.32.36.197
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 08, 2008 - 11:24 pm: |
|
Any woman in pants is easy, and you know it. If you are looking for a quick one night stand, just find a chick wearing pants. It really is that easy! |
rls
Junior Member
Username: rls
Post Number: 40
Registered: 12-2007
Posted From: 65.28.108.137
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 08, 2008 - 11:35 pm: |
|
Hi Greg_S!
I see you have been getting on to the subject of women and pants. Let's get middle eastern for a bit, eh? Maybe you should wear a thobe. It's actually more modest than pants for men. Just a thought. Oh, and for a hat, wear a kufi and kheffiya. Don't forget grooming. Beards and mustaches are a must. You can keep your hair on your scalp short. Oh, did I mention that there are middle eastern Christian men who dress similarly. You would proabably get on the men for not wearing pants, lol.
I'm teasing you Greg_S. But, the facts in evidence are these. Holiness apparel ala USA holiness movements are a western thing being applied to a middle eastern religion. Eh? Indeed it is, and some middle eastern Christians would consider you immodest. Check out Christianity's true roots and you will learn a lot that you have never known before. Have fun Greg_S. And, keep your nose away from areas that it doesn't belong in. Otherwise embarrassment will follow you. |
greg_s
Intermediate Member
Username: greg_s
Post Number: 353
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 64.12.117.202
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 - 7:06 pm: |
|
CONTINUING “A PANTS PRIMER”…
THE ONLY NECESSARY REASON – GOD’S NEW TESTAMENT LAW: As is always the case, thus far, there is much more support for the doctrines (hair, pants, tithe, titles, diluted wine, holy kiss et al) of the Body of Christ in God’s New Testament Law than the Ex’r Staff et al will admit/submit to. At this point in the Ex’r Staff’s development, any ignorance on their part is entirely willful; with the possibly single exception of victorjohanson. Strictly speaking (as we so often do) and based entirely on God’s New Testament Law (as is also the case in this series) lasciviousness, wantonness, filthiness and a lack of modesty and chastity in all its forms is a damning sin. To restrict intentional misunderstanding…lasciviousness, wantonness, filthiness and a lack of modesty and chastity, if not repented of by the time of a person’s death, will cause a person to be required to report directly to hell then subsequently to the Great White Throne judgment and then the Lake of Fire for all eternity. To further clarify, this is not a doctrine of our Christian Church only but a doctrine of the Body of Christ also; being based solely on God’s New Testament Law. A major tenant of the Body of Christ is that the Holy Ghost will not lead contrary to God’s New Testament Law. Yet, many peoples actions do not bear this out (i.e. a women will wear pants) but God’s New Testament Law does not bow/bend/sit/squat to societal conventions. To further clarify, the Body of Christ doctrine regarding women’s wear is based upon Mark 7:18-23 (lasciviousness); 2 Corinthians 12:20-21 (lasciviousness); Galatians 5:19-21 (lasciviousness); Ephesians 4:17-20 (lasciviousness); 1 Peter 4:1-5 (lasciviousness); Jude 1:1-19 (lasciviousness); Romans 13:1-14 (wantonness); 2 Peter 2:1-22 (pernicious, filthy, wantonness) et al of God’s New Testament Law coupled with the Greek and English definitions of same…as you will see below. Of course, the Ex’r Staff may counter that ‘shall not inherit the kingdom of God’ in Galatians 5:21 and ‘condemned them with an overthrow’ in 2 Peter 2:6 et al does not precisely/narrowly mean ‘going to/went to hell’ because it does not actually say ‘going to/went to hell.’ This is also predictable. Again, another major tenant of the Body of Christ is that the Holy Ghost will not lead contrary to God’s New Testament Law. Again, many peoples actions do not bear this out (i.e. a woman will wear pants) but God’s New Testament Law does not bow/bend/sit/squat to societal conventions. Above note, only God’s New Testament Law is presented. Ex’r Staff may also counter that we address more than the above verses in this series. This is true and also predictable. Our justification, in part, for continuing past this point is contained in the ‘NOT BASED ON CULTURE (DISCLAIMER)’ post below. At this point it is not too late to skip this series as you may already find it boring.
“A PANTS PRIMER” CONTINUED… |
pelfdaddy
Senior Member
Username: pelfdaddy
Post Number: 1026
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 166.128.81.63
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 - 7:59 pm: |
|
greg,
You continue to claim victory without the benefit of convincing anyone. Every lengthy paragraph you post only demonstrates the forest of words required to camouflage your lack of proof. There still remains that stark and untraversed space between your list of sinful attributes and the garments in question. |
victorjohanson
Junior Member
Username: victorjohanson
Post Number: 46
Registered: 12-2007
Posted From: 66.223.233.130
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 - 8:14 pm: |
|
"You continue to claim victory without the benefit of convincing anyone."
Brian, it's just another manifestation of the spurious NTCC "we are winning" campaign. It's all by faith, like believing one is healed when there is no perceptible improvement in symptoms. |
michael_ismyfirstname
Junior Member
Username: michael_ismyfirstname
Post Number: 26
Registered: 11-2007
Posted From: 72.172.42.141
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 - 9:37 pm: |
|
when a women puts on pants does that make her guilty of lasciviousness, wantonness, filthiness, lacking modesty and chastity?
is a women abstaining from pants of the same importance as that same women abstaining from promiscuous sex?
on a scale from 1 to 10. a 10 being send you to hell.
promiscuous sex being a 10 (send you to hell), would a women wearing pants also be a 10 (send you to hell) just as guilty as having promiscuous sex? |
victorjohanson
Junior Member
Username: victorjohanson
Post Number: 48
Registered: 12-2007
Posted From: 216.67.73.247
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 - 11:23 pm: |
|
"...is a women abstaining from pants of the same importance as that same women abstaining from promiscuous sex?"
Now haven't you been paying attention to Greg's dissertation? You should know by now that a woman wearing pants (especially when they press "snuggly [sic] against her vulva) is just advertising her lasciviousness, and that her apparel is irrefutable evidence that she is a fornicator or adulteress--at least in her heart. Didn't you learn anything in NTCC? |
greg_s
Intermediate Member
Username: greg_s
Post Number: 356
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 205.188.117.202
| | Posted on Thursday, January 10, 2008 - 12:42 pm: |
|
CONTINUING “A PANTS PRIMER”…
CONSISTENTLY PREDICTABLE: Again, this is predictable; we have learned to expect the Ex’r Staff to be illogically and inconsistently narrow online when it suits their perceived purpose because we have observed the Ex’r Staff being illogically and inconsistently narrow online when it suits their perceived purpose. We have also learned to expect the Ex’r Staff to be illogically and inconsistently broad online when it suits their perceived purpose because we have observed the Ex’r Staff being illogically and inconsistently broad online when it suits their perceived purpose. What is the Ex’r Staff’s perceived purpose based only on their online works (words)? As you have observed, the Ex’r Staff’s position is to be against most anything the Body of Christ is for. Although this and other clear/direct greg_s statements are inarguable the Ex’r Staff will argue or ignore in addition to positing that we are not clear and/or direct in what we say…i.e. that we some how beat around the bush as if we don’t know what we believe or it is a secret or we are ashamed; their choice du jour. Remember, though the Ex’r Staff don’t often read carefully (or at all) they always comment. Put another way, the arguments against all the Ex’rs illogically and inconsistently narrow and illogically and inconsistently broad positions are so obvious no one should have to make them. We all have Bibles or could easily get one or more versions. God’s New Testament Law, in whatever version you prefer, is able to be understood, even by the chronological child. Yet, a difference of perception remains within the Body of Christ and an/the argument against God’s New Testament Law rages without the Body of Christ on FACTNet et al. Yet, Ex’r Staff have all stated that a main reason du jour they are arrayed against our Christian Church is for doctrinal reasons/differences. The Body of Christ knows what we believe and can incontrovertibly express it to varying degrees given enough time and personal desire. Like bro_derrick this is the reason we personally come to FACTNet…we take some time and have the desire to prove God and put the long standing and well documented doctrines of the Body of Christ to the test against all comers—lucid and well reasoned or otherwise. To state another way, we present the doctrines of God’s New Testament Law that we choose to discuss as completely as we are able at this point in our personal development to see if anyone can disprove them. And, so far, the Word of God stands predictably undefeated, having not lost one skirmish. We chose the word skirmish because the quality of online resistance has not been enough to qualify as a battle when one adheres strictly to what is written in God’s New Testament Law when opposing the detractors/distracted and if one does not allow themselves to become distracted by the detractors. Contrary to the latest Ex’r Staff motto we ‘often read carefully and seldom comment.’ It may be overly dramatic to say ‘none of these Ex’r things move us’ but, it is true none the less. At this point it is not too late to skip this series as you may already find it boring.
“A PANTS PRIMER” CONTINUED… |
rls
Junior Member
Username: rls
Post Number: 45
Registered: 12-2007
Posted From: 65.28.108.137
| | Posted on Thursday, January 10, 2008 - 12:56 pm: |
|
Greg_S you really don't know what you're talking about when it comes to clothes or the New Testament and customs of that period in which it was written and to whom it was directly written. Come back when you want, but without the same NTCC ignorance. Do some real study of the era with real theologians, and not those fake ones at NTCC. There is a lot more than you apparently know on the subject. |
saygoodnightgracie
Junior Member
Username: saygoodnightgracie
Post Number: 39
Registered: 5-2005
Posted From: 96.228.213.249
| | Posted on Thursday, January 10, 2008 - 2:22 pm: |
|
"Abstaining from pants"!
I LOVE IT!!!
What about capri pants, they are right out I bet?
Shorts for men? Demonic? What about long shorts, very modest like board shorts to the knees, okay I hope Greg?
Awesome thread (no pun intended), keep it up! |
saygoodnightgracie
Junior Member
Username: saygoodnightgracie
Post Number: 40
Registered: 5-2005
Posted From: 96.228.213.249
| | Posted on Thursday, January 10, 2008 - 2:28 pm: |
|
"What are you giving up for Lent this year?"
"I'm not eating candy, what about you?"
"I'm abstaining from pants".
"Wow, think you can keep your flesh under?"
"Only with the help of the Holy Spirit".
Where's Hatter when I need 'em?... |
saygoodnightgracie
Junior Member
Username: saygoodnightgracie
Post Number: 41
Registered: 5-2005
Posted From: 96.228.213.249
| | Posted on Thursday, January 10, 2008 - 2:29 pm: |
|
"What are you giving up for Lent this year?"
"I'm not eating candy, what about you?"
"I'm abstaining from pants".
"Wow, think you can keep your flesh under?"
"Only with the help of the Holy Spirit".
Where's Hatter when I need 'em?... |
matt_hatter
New member
Username: matt_hatter
Post Number: 25
Registered: 12-2007
Posted From: 216.226.180.3
| | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 4:44 pm: |
|
 WOW!!!
Hey Greg...here's a suggestion....PARAGRAPH BREAKS!!
Maybe then I could get a lucid thought out of your post!
I would cuss you Gracie, if I could, for showing me another wacky chapter in the Factnet book of loons.  |
greg_s
Intermediate Member
Username: greg_s
Post Number: 359
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 205.188.117.202
| | Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 8:46 pm: |
|
CONTINUING “A PANTS PRIMER”…
THE HOLY GHOST LED CHRISTIAN WOMAN: Above, in the ‘THE ONLY NECESSARY REASON – GOD’S NEW TESTAMENT LAW’ post we have the reason why Holy Ghost led Christian women worldwide will eventually only wear skirts/dresses or a similarly covering garment in public. What follows is why Holy Ghost led Christian women worldwide will eventually only wear skirts/dresses or a similarly covering garment in public. The reason we qualify with ‘in public’ is because we are not sure if a women can be lascivious, wanton, filthy, immodest and unchaste inside her own home and around her own immediate family in the same way she can in public. Unlike Ex’r Staff, we adhere to a higher standard in that we do not add non essentials to God’s New Testament Law. Put another way, what follows is why Holy Ghost led Christian women will eventually only wear the modest garments (skirts/dresses or a similarly covering garment) found in whatever secular society she is part of. From the Inuit’s Amauti to a Burqa and all in between the Holy Ghost led Christian women will not be lascivious, wanton, filthy et al at all and will be modest and chaste in her manner and wear regardless of the culture she finds herself in. There is a modest/chaste et al manner of wear for women in all cultures in all eras in all locations; from Genesis 3:21 to present…from the South Pole to the North Pole…to the International Space Station…to all Planets et al in the Universe. Again note, this modest/chaste manner of wear may or may not be the western version of a dress/skirt. So far so good? This boring greg_s teaching continues for a while so you may want to skip to the end or even entirely, your choice…we are insouciant. This teaching is just as easy to understand or misunderstand and misrepresent as cults, tithe, hair, titles, diluted wine et al and just as uncomfortable/distasteful/boring to the intractable Ex’r Staff. At this point it is not too late to skip this series as you may already find it boring.
RESTRICTING INTENTIONAL MISUNDERSTANDING: To restrict intentionally misunderstanding note the following: This article does not address what constitutes men’s or women’s clothing (for the New Testament following Christian clothing’s gender is not an issue); but, only addresses and defines lasciviousness, wantonness, filthiness, modesty and chastity with some practical examples added to illustrate same. This article does not use the always weak/unnecessary ‘better safe than sorry’ tack this is never necessary when dealing with God’s New Testament Law. For the New Testament following Christian it is ‘always safe and never sorry’ that we are following God’s New Testament Law as it is written. Women wearing pants as an outer garment (in any culture), when said pants are not obscured by an additional long overhanging outward garment is a modern convention. A modern tradition or convention of secular society conceived, promoted and adopted within the last two centuries. Is there such a thing as a modern tradition? Secular society and the Ex’r Staff want to make it so; want us to believe it is so. Like so much about the Ex’r Staff their ‘modern tradition’ is a contradiction yet they want us to swallow that they have a distaste for ‘cognitive dissonance’ (this was one of many we had to look up in Webster’s). Another example of which is the Ex’rs continued assertion that they are strict followers of God’s New Testament Law as it is written. When a person’s foundation is wrong their reasoning/justification will, by neccessity, follow suit. Otherwise they would/will change. At this point it is not too late to skip this series as you may already find it boring.
“A PANTS PRIMER” CONTINUED… |
rls
Junior Member
Username: rls
Post Number: 49
Registered: 12-2007
Posted From: 65.28.108.137
| | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 10:00 am: |
|
Yep! That's right! greg_s is being wordy. Such words too. He even uses Scripture references without posting the actual Scripture to make his point. Eh, where in the Scripture does it say, "Women will not wear pants."? If you want to get into detailed descriptions of what to wear, you would actually have to go Old Testament within the Torah. That means greg_s better not wear anything that is mixed plant, or other.
Eh, maybe he is crazy like a fox. Anyone looking into NTCC and going by greg_s would possibly want to stay out of NTCC. |
michael_ismyfirstname
Junior Member
Username: michael_ismyfirstname
Post Number: 28
Registered: 11-2007
Posted From: 72.172.42.141
| | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 10:18 am: |
|
Quote---"The reason we qualify with ‘in public’ is because we are not sure if a women can be lascivious, wanton, filthy, immodest and unchaste inside her own home and around her own immediate family in the same way she can in public."
Is it the publics perception of the women wearing pants that makes her lascivious, wanton, filthy, immodest and unchaste?
Or is it the women's (who is wearing pants) intentions and thoughts of how she will be perceived while in public?
Does that mean there needs to be conscious thought of wanting to be lascivious, wanton, filthy, immodest and unchaste in order to be guilty of such things?
If it doesn't take conscious thought of the women who wears pants in public mixed gender settings wanting to be lascivious, wanton, filthy, immodest and unchaste but rather just the act of the women wearing pants in public mixed gender settings regardless of her intentions and perceptions of her behavior.
then I ask you, is your perception of this act the damning factor for women who wear pants in public mixed gender settings? |
rls
Member
Username: rls
Post Number: 53
Registered: 12-2007
Posted From: 65.28.108.137
| | Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 10:22 am: |
|
Maybe women in pants get him to blushing. If that is all it takes to get him to blushing, the feller has a few problems of his own, eh? |
michael_ismyfirstname
Junior Member
Username: michael_ismyfirstname
Post Number: 29
Registered: 11-2007
Posted From: 72.172.42.141
| | Posted on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 9:22 pm: |
|
so are you requiring women to abstain from pants so that you can keep from defiling them with your thoughts?
if prepubescent girls in pants was a weak point for you, you would want them to cover up and hide themselves. |
greg_s
Intermediate Member
Username: greg_s
Post Number: 361
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 64.12.117.202
| | Posted on Sunday, January 13, 2008 - 9:51 pm: |
|
CONTINUING ‘A PANTS PRIMER’…
VINE’S ON ASELGEIA: Vine’s on Aselgeia -- Lascivious, Lasciviousness - aselgeia denotes ‘excess, licentiousness, absence of restraint, indecency, wantonness;’ ‘lasciviousness’ in Mark 7:22, one of the evils that proceed from the heart; in 2 Corinthians 12:21, one of the evils of which some in the Church at Corinth had been guilty; in Galatians 5:19, classed among the works of the flesh; in Ephesians 4:19, among the sins of the unregenerate who are ‘past feeling;’ so in 1 Peter 4:3; in Jude 1:4, of that into which the grace of God had been turned by ungodly men; it is translated ‘wantonness’ in Romans 13:13, one of the sins against which believers are warned; in 2 Peter 2:2, according to the best manuscripts, ‘lascivious (doings),’ RV (the AV ‘pernicious ways’ follows those texts which have apoleiais); in 2 Peter 2:7, RV, ‘lascivious (life),’ AV ‘filthy (conversation),’ of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah; in 2 Peter 2:18, RV, ‘lasciviousness’ (AV, ‘wantonness’), practiced by the same persons as mentioned in Jude. The prominent idea is shameless conduct. Some have derived the word from ‘a’ (negative) and ‘selge’ (a city in Pisidia.) Others, with similar improbability, trace it to ‘a’ (negative) and ‘selgo or thelgo’ (to charm.) See WANTONNESS if you dare.
WEBSTER’S:
re•straint n. 1. a restraining action or influence. 2. Sometimes, restraints. a means of or device for restraining, as a harness for the body. 3. the act of restraining, holding back, controlling, or checking. 4. the state or fact of being restrained; deprivation of liberty; confinement. 5. constraint or reserve in feelings, behavior, etc. —Syn. 4. circumscription, restriction, imprisonment, incarceration. —Ant. 4. liberty.
in•de•cent adj. 1. offending against generally accepted standards of propriety or good taste; improper; vulgar: indecent jokes; indecent language; indecent behavior. 2. not decent; unbecoming or unseemly: indecent haste. —Syn. 1. distasteful, immodest, indecorous, indelicate; coarse, outrageous, rude, gross; obscene, filthy, lewd, licentious. See improper. 2. inappropriate. —Ant. 2. appropriate; becoming.
per•ni•cious adj. 1. causing insidious harm or ruin; ruinous; injurious; hurtful: pernicious teachings; a pernicious lie. 2. deadly; fatal: a pernicious disease. 3. Obs. evil; wicked. —Syn. 1. harmful, detrimental, deleterious, destructive, damaging, baneful, noxious, malicious. 2. lethal.
At this point it is not too late to skip this series as you may already find it boring.
‘A PANTS PRIMER’ CONTINUED… |
michael_ismyfirstname
Junior Member
Username: michael_ismyfirstname
Post Number: 30
Registered: 11-2007
Posted From: 72.172.42.141
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 8:55 am: |
|
I thought we were only talking about pants on women, like you said so many times. So I was trying to stick with the same subject and not deter or distract.
The problem I have is your pants will send you to hell attitude.
When I seek clarity you contend with other issues that are outside of the original concept of, its impossible for women who wear pants to go to heaven.
Does your mom wear pants, is she guilty? Or is ignorance her saving bliss that will keep her from hell?
Are you trying to justify our qualification for hell as if we weren't already told this in John chapter 3.
Not every one likes to be radical in thinking that the slightest misguidance to the degree of wearing pants will send them to hell. |
matthew_wadsworth
Member
Username: matthew_wadsworth
Post Number: 86
Registered: 11-2004
Posted From: 206.174.0.146
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 3:32 pm: |
|
OMG lol I can't believe I used to worry about this stupid ****  SO GLAD TO BE OUT OF THE ASSYLUM  |
pelfdaddy
Senior Member
Username: pelfdaddy
Post Number: 1052
Registered: 12-2006
Posted From: 166.214.98.68
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 4:30 pm: |
|
Greg,
As always, you seem to believe that you can vanquish the enemies of God by posting definitions of words, yet you fail to span that unbridegable gap between these definitions and your view on pants.
Your failure is spectacular, in that it occurs with much bombast and noise. Shall we post the definitions of words and pretend that these meanings are connected with other doctrines we would like to promote?
If I post the definition of "Dork" (for example), I can only speculate from that point, based entirely on my opinion of your actions, that you are one. Yet it does not prove my opinion unless I provide specific examples of behaviors that are objectively and commonly understood to be "dorky". Yet merely this does not give me license to consign all dorks to the nether regions of the afterlife, and to declare this to be the case would make me a bit of a dork just like you. |
greg_s
Intermediate Member
Username: greg_s
Post Number: 362
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 64.12.117.202
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 7:43 pm: |
|
How can we argue against a characterization that is so strictly accurate? We concur we are a dork. See, we can agree. Nothing in God's New Testament Law Commands us not to be a dork. Continuing "A Pants Primer" below... |
doug_allen
Intermediate Member
Username: doug_allen
Post Number: 265
Registered: 5-2005
Posted From: 67.35.72.9
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 - 8:28 am: |
|
"We concur we are a dork."
Greg Shunk, maybe you should spend some time studying some other topics and heed the aphorism 'know thyself.'
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder |
michael_ismyfirstname
Junior Member
Username: michael_ismyfirstname
Post Number: 31
Registered: 11-2007
Posted From: 205.165.32.232
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 - 11:14 am: |
|
some one who refers to themself in the 3rd person does not qualify for a diagnosis of a medical disorder. You are just making a joke about the way he types.
At times I am a dork, and at times silly (goofy).
Greg_s I don't think that you are going to get a commonly understood and agreed upon consensus that the behavior of women wearing pants is sufficient evidence to support the idea that those actions are equatable to lasciviousness, wantonness, filthiness, lacking modesty and chastity.
Said differently, not every one is going to agree with you. Don't let that deter you from what you think is right. |
greg_s
Intermediate Member
Username: greg_s
Post Number: 363
Registered: 6-2005
Posted From: 64.12.117.202
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 2:25 am: |
|
CONTINUING ‘A PANTS PRIMER’…
ANOTHER REASON…LASCIVIOUSNESS: One reason Holy Ghost led women will only wear skirts/dresses or a similarly covering garment is to eschew lasciviousness. The premise of this teaching revolves around what practically defines/models lasciviousness as laid out in God’s New Testament Law.
Galatians 5:19-21 (KJV) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
From James Strong LL.D., S.T.D. (The preeminent word counter) on lascivious(ness):
Greek Strong's Number: 766. Transliteration: aselgeia. Part of Speech: adj. English Words used in KJV: lasciviousness 6, wantonness 2, filthy 1 [Total Count: 9]. from a compound of <g1> (a) (as a negative particle) and a presumed selges (of uncertain derivative, but apparently meaning continent); licentiousness (sometimes including other vices) :- filthy, lasciviousness, wantonness.
From Webster’s:
li•cen•tious adj. 1. sexually unrestrained; lascivious; libertine; lewd. 2. unrestrained by law or general morality; lawless; immoral. 3. going beyond customary or proper bounds or limits; disregarding rules. —Syn. 2. abandoned, profligate. —Ant. 2. lawful.
las•civ•i•ous adj. 1. inclined to lustfulness; wanton; lewd. 2. arousing sexual desire. 3. indicating sexual interest or expressive of lust or lewdness. —las•civÆi•ous•ly, adv. —las•civÆi•ous•ness, n.
NOTE: Because of the company and/or context the Greek word aselgeia (lascivious, wantonness, filthy) keeps in the above verses, and elsewhere, the worst characterizations, based on the definitions, are the appropriate ones. Also, note that the antonym is ‘lawful.’
At this point it is not too late to skip this series as you may already find it boring.
‘A PANTS PRIMER’ CONTINUED… |
doug_allen
Intermediate Member
Username: doug_allen
Post Number: 266
Registered: 5-2005
Posted From: 67.35.72.9
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 11:49 am: |
|
Greg Shunk, this is one of your best posts. It's short, to the point, and makes very few assumptions. I can use this material the next time I preach. It leaves most of the thinking up to the individual Christian and allows them to make the decision on what is lascivious.
However, when you make this statement, "only wear skirts/dresses or a similarly covering garment is to eschew lasciviousness," you seem to assume that any woman wearing a skirt or dress cannot be lascivious.
If you concentrated on a "similarly covering garment," and you left it up to the individual Christian/Christian family to make the decisions, you would be more in line with the New Testament. |
victorjohanson
Member
Username: victorjohanson
Post Number: 74
Registered: 12-2007
Posted From: 66.230.81.207
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 12:46 pm: |
|
'If you concentrated on a "similarly covering garment,"'
Greg's point is that pants aren't a "similarly covering garment," because when a woman squats, the fabric strains "snuggly [sic] against her vulva." |
|
