Let's talk about the word "standards"

Bruh said:
It’s like I said in other post. Preached behind the pulpit would make it a cult.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that if someone preaches something as truth that ain’t truth then they are a cult? For instance, if they preach that a person who is being sanctified will speak in tongues, then they are a cult?
 
ALAYMAN said:
So you are saying that if someone preaches something as truth that ain’t truth then they are a cult? For instance, if they preach that a person who is being sanctified will speak in tongues, then they are a cult?
Click to expand...
Yeah. So take the Catholics, they teach they need the church to help them get to heaven. That teaching binds them to the Catholic Church.
 
Bruh said:
Yeah. So take the Catholics, they teach they need the church to help them get to heaven. That teaching binds them to the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
There are different levels of errors, some of which rise to heresy. The (Catholic) one that you mentioned is heresy, meaning that it will be damnable for the soul. Teaching somebody that the Bible says that they must speak in tongues to reach the next level sanctification, or if they’re a woman they should only wear dresses, that babys should be baptized to be brought into the church, is error, maybe even gross error, but it’s not going to lead a soul to hell. The same can’t be said of the Catholic doctrine that you just mentioned. The Catholics are a theological cult for that very reason. You’re wrongly conflating categories and making up your own definitions.
 
ALAYMAN said:
There are different levels of errors, some of which rise to heresy. The (Catholic) one that you mentioned is heresy, meaning that it will be damnable for the soul. Teaching somebody that the Bible says that they must speak in tongues to reach the next level sanctification, or if they’re a woman they should only wear dresses, that babys should be baptized to be brought into the church, is error, maybe even gross error, but it’s not going to lead a soul to hell. The same can’t be said of the Catholic doctrine that you just mentioned. The Catholics are a theological cult for that very reason. You’re wrongly conflating categories and making up your own definitions.
Click to expand...
I'm finding he's not going to be satisfied unless he is arguing...
 
Bruh said:
It’s like I said in other post. Preached behind the pulpit would make it a cult.
Click to expand...
Hogwash! If they are saying that you won't get to heaven unless you do these things, THAT makes them a cult. If you don't like what they're preaching, instead of being DIVISIVE, go to another church where the beliefs and standards are more lax.
 
AverageJoe said:
Hogwash! If they are saying that you won't get to heaven unless you do these things, THAT makes them a cult. If you don't like what they're preaching, instead of being DIVISIVE, go to another church where the beliefs and standards are more lax.
Click to expand...
I understand what you’re saying about the gospel.

It’s not for salvation we are separating from the world it’s sactification. It’s about letting the world see our spirituality.

But not the men. That is weird isn’t it? The women are the ones that need to look different from the world but not the men. The women are the ones that have to look weird and out of place.

If dresses show the world that she’s a Christian how does a man show the world he’s a Christian by how he dresses.

Where in scripture does it say a woman must wear dresses only.
 
Bruh said:
I understand what you’re saying about the gospel.

It’s not for salvation we are separating from the world it’s sactification. It’s about letting the world see our spirituality.

But not the men. That is weird isn’t it? The women are the ones that need to look different from the world but not the men. The women are the ones that have to look weird and out of place.

If dresses show the world that she’s a Christian how does a man show the world he’s a Christian by how he dresses.

Where in scripture does it say a woman must wear dresses only.
Click to expand...
It doesn't. It gives guidance for proper dress. You're so hung up on dresses and who wants to use them as their standard of dress for women that, once again you're straining at a gnat. Seems like you spend a LOT of time doing that! And guidance isn't just for women, The standard for most IFB churches is short hair, and in some congregations, clean shaven men...no facial hair, period to speak behind the pulpit. This is THEIR choice as a congregation. If you can't hack the standards it's time to move on. It's more about ones ability to follow the leadership in their church. Nobody is forcing the women to wear dresses or skirts. It gives their choice on who can and who can't teach, sing in the choir, take the offering, or be a greeter. You are beginning to sound like a malcontent and DIVISIVE person.
 
ALAYMAN said:
Sure.

You don’t think tattoos (or music, art, theater, etc) represents some moral expression of the culture?
Click to expand...
I'm sure that they are. Most people will gladly explain the meanings of their ink. The point is that a person's motivation for a tattoo today is no more obvious than the motivation to wear one's hair long was back in the day.
 
subllibrm said:
I'm sure that they are. Most people will gladly explain the meanings of their ink. The point is that a person's motivation for a tattoo today is no more obvious than the motivation to wear one's hair long was back in the day.
Click to expand...
I think that you are making an overstatement. The fact that people are willing to tell you what their ink means gives an indicator about their philosophy of life, which goes to my point about you can get meaning from certain cultural practices within a contextual timeframe. To that point and, biscuit has a certain measurable truth, albeit one of a generalized nature. So the part that you are correctly stating is that the subjective nature of such cultural measurements should keep us from making overly broad statements about what such practices tell us about the individual in any absolute sense.

Let’s jump shark for just a second. The Androgynous nature of society now when it comes to the subject of masculinity and femininity is an intentional movement by dark forces within our culture and globally. That is not even close to being arguable. So the effect that IFBxers were shouting about when it came to this subject of the feminization of our culture, was in fact, correct. The manner in which they made rules that applied to the external (hair length, clothing type, work roles, etc) as a means to reach an end (keeping the creation order in effect) was wrong-headed in its approach, but right in its diagnosis.
 
Last edited:
subllibrm said:
I'm sure that they are. Most people will gladly explain the meanings of their ink. The point is that a person's motivation for a tattoo today is no more obvious than the motivation to wear one's hair long was back in the day.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the motivation is largely due to following a fad or a social contagion.

“Like dude, I have Elvis tatted on my butt because his music…it inspires me to greatness”
 
Bruh said:
In my opinion you can spot a cult if they require women to wear a dress to teach Sunday school.
Click to expand...

And yet, earlier you said:

Bruh said:
Us verses them
Don’t question authority
Control
Cannot challenge the pastor
Using fear to control
Black and white thinking about issues that are not in scripture
Discouraged to have close relationships with people outside of the church
Click to expand...

And so you cannot make up your mind what constitutes a "cult," meaning your opinion on the subject is mercurial, unreliable and worthless.

That's not a "cult," it's a dress code. And like every other dress code l've ever seen, it applies to a specific situation (e.g. while at work, at school, or teaching Sunday school) and not outside of that situation. Requiring women to wear dresses to teach Sunday school does not mean she must also wear the dress to sit in the sanctuary or go shopping.

Enforcing a specific dress code at all times in order to mark members as different or separate from the world might be a symptom of a cult, but that's not what you're talking about.

Sheesh. Learn some critical thinking skills.
 
Last edited:
Ransom said:
And yet, earlier you said:



And so you cannot make up your mind what constitutes a "cult," meaning your opinion on the subject is mercurial, unreliable and worthless.

That's not a "cult," it's a dress code. And like every other dress code l've ever seen, it applies to a specific situation (e.g. while at work, at school, or teaching Sunday school) and not outside of that situation. Requiring women to wear dresses to teach Sunday school does not mean she must also wear the dress to sit in the sanctuary or go shopping.

Enforcing a specific dress code at all times in order to mark members as different or separate from the world might be a symptom of a cult, but that's not what you're talking about.

Sheesh. Learn some critical thinking skills.
Click to expand...
I disagree with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top