Lock Lock Lock

[Tarheel Baptist]

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

Agreed!
The point that IFB's get mad and criticize other progressive churches is accepted.
But, that some more progressive churches and believers get angry and criticize, even resent, IFB's who refuse to change their ways seems to be a revelation to some. Both are true in many instances.

 

[bgwilkinson]

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

Dead on right.

 

[Walt]

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

When one is dealing with holiness and righteousness it matters to an extent what other people do.  It is critical that believers don't go beyond the Scriptures: many personal preferences are preached as if they were Biblical standards - the list is legion, but I'll mention a couple: pink shirts (on men), and what time the services are.  We must give one another liberty where the Bible is silent.

Having said that, there are a lot of topics about which the Bible is NOT silent, and about which we will disagree.  The Bible DOES speak about the need for modest dress, and that men should have short hair, and many other topics.

If a church wants to preach that it is a sin for a woman to wear trousers, they need to back it up with Scripture.  Others (many others) will disagree with their interpretation of Scripture, but if they have a reasonable basis, I am willing to allow them their interpretation.  Sometimes I imagine the following conversation between (P)reacher and (V)isitor:

P: At our church, we don't believe that women should wear pants.
V: Why?
P: Because they are immodest
V: Where does it say that in the Scripture?
P: Brings up well-known passage in Duet... reads it.
V: That verse does not say that pants on women are immodest
P: No, but it says that a woman shouldn't wear "men's apparel"
V: Actually, it says that a woman should not wear that with "pertaineth to a man", and those pants belong to my wife, not some man.
P: But pants are associated with men, not women
V: It used to be so in American society, but not today.
P: But society has gone downhill.
V: We seem to disagree about what "pertain" means; let me ask you a couple of questions: Is your church air-conditioned?
P: Yes!
V: And do some women get too cold?
P: Some do.
V: And do kind husbands let their wives have their jackets to keep warm?
P: Yes, we have many such thoughtful men
V: I submit to you that in this case, it is a much clearer violation of that verse: the woman is wearing something that actually belongs to a man AND it is associated with men.  Or perhaps (somehow) that verse only refers to what is worn on the lower part of the body?
P: You liberal you!  Get out of here!

Music is another hot topic.  One either believes that music is amoral or not.  To some churches, music is music; to others, certain types of music are sensual and worldly and don't belong in church.  We won't agree with each other - just make sure that we have a Scriptural basis for our position.  We should be able to disagree with one another without claiming that the dissenter is "of the devil".

 

[bgwilkinson]

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

When one is dealing with holiness and righteousness it matters to an extent what other people do.  It is critical that believers don't go beyond the Scriptures: many personal preferences are preached as if they were Biblical standards - the list is legion, but I'll mention a couple: pink shirts (on men), and what time the services are.  We must give one another liberty where the Bible is silent.

Having said that, there are a lot of topics about which the Bible is NOT silent, and about which we will disagree.  The Bible DOES speak about the need for modest dress, and that men should have short hair, and many other topics.

If a church wants to preach that it is a sin for a woman to wear trousers, they need to back it up with Scripture.  Others (many others) will disagree with their interpretation of Scripture, but if they have a reasonable basis, I am willing to allow them their interpretation.  Sometimes I imagine the following conversation between (P)reacher and (V)isitor:

P: At our church, we don't believe that women should wear pants.
V: Why?
P: Because they are immodest
V: Where does it say that in the Scripture?
P: Brings up well-known passage in Duet... reads it.
V: That verse does not say that pants on women are immodest
P: No, but it says that a woman shouldn't wear "men's apparel"
V: Actually, it says that a woman should not wear that with "pertaineth to a man", and those pants belong to my wife, not some man.
P: But pants are associated with men, not women
V: It used to be so in American society, but not today.
P: But society has gone downhill.
V: We seem to disagree about what "pertain" means; let me ask you a couple of questions: Is your church air-conditioned?
P: Yes!
V: And do some women get too cold?
P: Some do.
V: And do kind husbands let their wives have their jackets to keep warm?
P: Yes, we have many such thoughtful men
V: I submit to you that in this case, it is a much clearer violation of that verse: the woman is wearing something that actually belongs to a man AND it is associated with men.  Or perhaps (somehow) that verse only refers to what is worn on the lower part of the body?
P: You liberal you!  Get out of here!

Music is another hot topic.  One either believes that music is amoral or not.  To some churches, music is music; to others, certain types of music are sensual and worldly and don't belong in church.  We won't agree with each other - just make sure that we have a Scriptural basis for our position.  We should be able to disagree with one another without claiming that the dissenter is "of the devil".

This is all a matter of Soul Liberty which I as a convinced Baptist hold to rather tenaciously.

Each person is free to decide what they believe the Bible teaches about any given subject.

As long as we do not infringe on those same rights of others we should be able to get along.

Good people can disagree without being disagreeable or mean. The LORD did tell us to love one other.

Now I know I do not agree with every other person in our congregation but we get along just fine.

 

[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.

It popped into my head that it was "Jarhead" who made this claim. He was one of my favorites. He would go off on crazy, angry rants.  I have to admit, he was hilarious to mess with and yes,  I occasionally lit that match just for fun.

 

[sword]

I think we would all agree if you take enough clothes off in public it is immodest. That being said then its just a mater of where each person draws the line.

Same with Alcohol and drugs. Most of us have consumed alcohol &  opiates in medicines. We would clearly not all agree where the line is drawn between medicinal use, personal use & use to the point of drunkenness.

Every issue is is a mater of interpretation of where to draw the line.

 

[subllibrm]

I think we would all agree if you take enough clothes off in public it is immodest. That being said then its just a mater of where each person draws the line.

Same with Alcohol and drugs. Most of us have consumed alcohol &  opiates in medicines. We would clearly not all agree where the line is drawn between medicinal use, personal use & use to the point of drunkenness.

Every issue is is a mater of interpretation of where to draw the line.

So you are advocating that each person be allowed to set their own course and make their own decisions?

 

[Walt]

I think we would all agree if you take enough clothes off in public it is immodest. That being said then its just a mater of where each person draws the line.

Same with Alcohol and drugs. Most of us have consumed alcohol &  opiates in medicines. We would clearly not all agree where the line is drawn between medicinal use, personal use & use to the point of drunkenness.

Every issue is is a mater of interpretation of where to draw the line.

So you are advocating that each person be allowed to set their own course and make their own decisions?

Everyone does this anyway.  We can influence others via preaching or friendship, but ultimately, they must decide what they believe the Scriptures say in regard to their behavior.

 

[sword]

I think we would all agree if you take enough clothes off in public it is immodest. That being said then its just a mater of where each person draws the line.

Same with Alcohol and drugs. Most of us have consumed alcohol &  opiates in medicines. We would clearly not all agree where the line is drawn between medicinal use, personal use & use to the point of drunkenness.

Every issue is is a mater of interpretation of where to draw the line.

So you are advocating that each person be allowed to set their own course and make their own decisions?

Everyone does this anyway.  We can influence others via preaching or friendship, but ultimately, they must decide what they believe the Scriptures say in regard to their behavior.

I typed these 8 words exactly as Walt did before I saw his post. Soul liberty means we can do whatever we want. It does not mean God will be pleased with it or that we will not pay for our actions.

My point is why do people feel everyone must see it their way. We all interpret the bible and practice our convictions and preferences differently. If you ask me what I think I will make a strong case for my stance. If not then why should I try to convince you that my position is right and that you are wrong.

 

[Walt]

I think we would all agree if you take enough clothes off in public it is immodest. That being said then its just a mater of where each person draws the line.

Same with Alcohol and drugs. Most of us have consumed alcohol &  opiates in medicines. We would clearly not all agree where the line is drawn between medicinal use, personal use & use to the point of drunkenness.

Every issue is is a mater of interpretation of where to draw the line.

So you are advocating that each person be allowed to set their own course and make their own decisions?

Everyone does this anyway.  We can influence others via preaching or friendship, but ultimately, they must decide what they believe the Scriptures say in regard to their behavior.

I typed these 8 words exactly as Walt did before I saw his post. Soul liberty means we can do whatever we want. It does not mean God will be pleased with it or that we will not pay for our actions.

My point is why do people feel everyone must see it their way. We all interpret the bible and practice our convictions and preferences differently. If you ask me what I think I will make a strong case for my stance. If not then why should I try to convince you that my position is right and that you are wrong.

I'll try to convince people that I'm close to, or have responsibility for.  But I definitely don't feel called to butt-in on strangers and try to tell them they are wrong and I am right.