Lock Lock Lock

[Tim]

Starting to feel like a jail around here.  8)

 

[FreeToBeMe]

I'm glad to see it happening.  Mods acting like true mods.  The way it should be. 

 

[FSSL]

Then get outside and enjoy the day!

 

[FSSL]

That's me!

 

[bgwilkinson]

My former pastor Bro. Hyles would have called the two girls pictured naked.

I did not agree with him on this issue even when he was alive, Christian liberty in a reasonable way is better than legalism.

 

[FSSL]

My former pastor Bro. Hyles would have called the two girls pictured naked.

I did not agree with him on this issue even when he was alive, Christian liberty in a reasonable way is better than legalism.

Yikes! Truly, there is an extreme IFB position. My girls are the most modest on the beach

Hyles had a personal failure in the area of sex. Of course, you could expect the extreme positions to be enforced.

Our family took a boat trip on the intracostal today. We just came off a hard week of teaching a group of 7th graders from Mississippi, Marine Biology.  My wife and youngest daughter are marine biologist educators.

 

[Just John]

Yeah, years ago some whack job on the old FFF said my daughter was naked because she was in shorts and her thighs were showing.  LOLOLOL!  Wish I could remember who it was.

 

[sword]

I think the standard IFB position says if you show the thigh in public it is immodest.

Some would also call it naked, but most would just say immodest.

Also showing any cleavage may not be considered naked but the IFB position would say it is clearly immodest.

 

[sword]

If you disagree with their standard position then that's fine but I would just recommend you find a church that agrees more with your position.

 

[Walt]

I think the standard IFB position says if you show the thigh in public it is immodest.

Some would also call it naked, but most would just say immodest.

Also showing any cleavage may not be considered naked but the IFB position would say it is clearly immodest.

If I remember correctly, Hyles and his ilk used a verse from Isaiah that seemed to indicate that used the word "naked" when the thighs were uncovered, and that is the basis for the teaching.

 

[bgwilkinson]

I think the standard IFB position says if you show the thigh in public it is immodest.

Some would also call it naked, but most would just say immodest.

Also showing any cleavage may not be considered naked but the IFB position would say it is clearly immodest.

If I remember correctly, Hyles and his ilk used a verse from Isaiah that seemed to indicate that used the word "naked" when the thighs were uncovered, and that is the basis for the teaching.

Yes you are correct.

Just one more example of where IFBs corkscrew a verse out of its contextual basis  building  a new man-made doctrine upon it.

 

[Ransom]

If you disagree with their standard position then that's fine but I would just recommend you find a church that agrees more with your position.

And how does one go about finding such a church? I've seen some cockamamie things in fundy doctrinal statements, but so far they've admirably restrained themselves from enshrining "We believe God defines nakedness as showing the thigh (Isaiah 47:2 KJV)" in their creeds.

 

[sword]

If you disagree with their standard position then that's fine but I would just recommend you find a church that agrees more with your position.

And how does one go about finding such a church? I've seen some cockamamie things in fundy doctrinal statements, but so far they've admirably restrained themselves from enshrining "We believe God defines nakedness as showing the thigh (Isaiah 47:2 KJV)" in their creeds.

I have been in 50 plus churches in my lifetime.

I have a good sense of what the church believes by the end of the first service. If you just ask what colleges they "support" or recommend to their young people and what speakers they have for special days you will have a real good idea what they believe.

You can gauge the style of church by what ministries they have or even what song book they use. Most pastors will be glad to take a few mins, or more if needed,,to discuss their "style" of church.

 

[sword]

Knowing what type of church your in is rarely the issue. Finding one with the exact balance and style you prefer is the trick. You may have to visit a dozen or more before you are successful. Calling ahead & doing research can save a lot of time.

Don't give up, keep looking until you have found one you like.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

.. then he side tracked the discussion when i quoted the rest of the passage and tried to explain what was really being said...

Well, of course he did! A woman explaining the bible to a man? A woman teaching a man? Such heresy! Such corruption! Such sin! Such rebellion! Such apostasy! Such wickedness! She can't do that! She. Can't. Do. That! Can she?

 

[Ransom]

I have a good sense of what the church believes by the end of the first service.

And the question of what constitutes "nakedness" with respect to exposure of the leg comes up on a weekly basis?

And I thought TRT said I was obsessed with the topic.

 

[bgwilkinson]

I think the standard IFB position says if you show the thigh in public it is immodest.

Some would also call it naked, but most would just say immodest.

Also showing any cleavage may not be considered naked but the IFB position would say it is clearly immodest.

If I remember correctly, Hyles and his ilk used a verse from Isaiah that seemed to indicate that used the word "naked" when the thighs were uncovered, and that is the basis for the teaching.

and a poster on this very forum.. (alayman)...  used that same verse in isaiah 47 just a few weeks ago here to back up his claim that showing the thigh equated to nakedness.......  .... like ifbxers always do he took it out of context .... and only quoted verses 2 and 3..... conveniently leaving out verse 1 which gives the context to verses 2 and 3...... .. then he side tracked the discussion when i quoted the rest of the passage and tried to explain what was really being said........

If IFBxers included the context they could not prove their points, then what would they do or say to their followers?

Being honest they would say, "This is just my opinion take it for what it's worth." They would never admit it was just their opinion.

Hard to control those type of followers if one is honest and forthright in ones hermeneutics.

It would make the Bible preeminent and not the IFBxer. Can't have that. They don't really care what the author meant.

 

[Just John]

I think the standard IFB position says if you show the thigh in public it is immodest.

Some would also call it naked, but most would just say immodest.

Also showing any cleavage may not be considered naked but the IFB position would say it is clearly immodest.

If I remember correctly, Hyles and his ilk used a verse from Isaiah that seemed to indicate that used the word "naked" when the thighs were uncovered, and that is the basis for the teaching.

Yes you are correct.

Just one more example of where IFBs corkscrew a verse out of its contextual basis  building  a new man-made doctrine upon it.

Imagine!

 

[Just John]

If you disagree with their standard position then that's fine but I would just recommend you find a church that agrees more with your position.

 

[sword]

Is it just the nature of religion or what? Why do people feel everyone else must adopt their view or position on doctrine, standards or even methods. I see this on both sides. The IFB churches get mad &  criticize when other churches choose to do things in a different way and the more progressive churches get mad when Old School churches choose to continue to do things there way.

Why can't people accept that people are not always going to share your views.

We spend too much time worrying about what every one else thinks or what they believe and not near enough time looking in the mirror. Reminds me of an old hymn on this subject.

https://youtu.be/90C-Wx_uGdM