The Rebellion of Nudity and the Meaning of Clothing

Status
Not open for further replies.
aleshanee said:
Tim said:
1 Timothy 5:20
As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

that verse sits in the middle of a paragraph that is talking about church leadership and elders....... how we should give them the higher honor due to them because of the responsibility they take.... but how because of that honor and responsibility we should also hold them to an even greater accountably when they persist in sin.......

in short it teaches to hold leaders and elders to higher standard.... and not turn a blind eye to the sin of elders or leaders like certain ifb churches have recently become infamous for doing.....

but rather than take it out of context in an effort to justify setting yourself up as a judge and jury of your fellow christians on the matters you hold as your personal peaves... ..... why not present the scripture in it;s proper context and interpret it;s proper meaning?.......

here is the whole passage in context......




--------------------

? 1st timothy 5; 17 to 22 ...... let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.........  .... for the scripture says, ?you shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,? and, ?the laborer deserves his wages.?........  ...... do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses......... as for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear........ in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels i charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality......... do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure......

----------------



what you have done tim is to demonstrate one of the biggest injustices done by the translators of scripture in previous centuries who broke up and numbered the cannon into convenient chapter and verse divisions...... ... sure ....it made it easier to find whatever you needed to refer to when searching out and studying the scriptures..... and it ended up being a valuable research tool..... .. .... but it also made it incredibly easy for people to take scripture out of context and misuse or misinterpret it..... .... and easier for them to make others believe their misinterpretations when they did it...... ...  ......

in short it enabled and facilitated the cults.... and gave false credence to their errors.......  and it;s generally those most unfamiliar with scripture who fall for it......

Ya beat me too it.

earnestly contend

 
aleshanee said:
Tim said:
1 Timothy 5:20
As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.

that verse sits in the middle of a paragraph that is talking about church leadership and elders....... how we should give them the higher honor due to them because of the responsibility they take.... but how because of that honor and responsibility we should also hold them to an even greater accountably when they persist in sin.......

in short it teaches to hold leaders and elders to higher standard.... and not turn a blind eye to the sin of elders or leaders like certain ifb churches have recently become infamous for doing.....

but rather than take it out of context in an effort to justify setting yourself up as a judge and jury of your fellow christians on the matters you hold as your personal peaves... ..... why not present the scripture in it;s proper context and interpret it;s proper meaning?.......

here is the whole passage in context......




--------------------

? 1st timothy 5; 17 to 22 ...... let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.........  .... for the scripture says, ?you shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,? and, ?the laborer deserves his wages.?........  ...... do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses......... as for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear........ in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels i charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality......... do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure......

----------------



what you have done tim is to demonstrate one of the biggest injustices done by the translators of scripture in previous centuries who broke up and numbered the cannon into convenient chapter and verse divisions...... ... sure ....it made it easier to find whatever you needed to refer to when searching out and studying the scriptures..... and it ended up being a valuable research tool..... .. .... but it also made it incredibly easy for people to take scripture out of context and misuse or misinterpret it..... .... and easier for them to make others believe their misinterpretations when they did it...... ...  ......

in short it enabled and facilitated the cults.... and gave false credence to their errors.......  and it;s generally those most unfamiliar with scripture who fall for it......


This is so common among the IFB, they corkscrew verses out of context to prove some point that was not intended by the context of the passage. They do this without even thinking about it when they agree with the point they are making.

It was Stephanus in his Greek NT of 1551 that was the first to provide verse divisions.

You are so dead on with your observations.
 
aleshanee said:
FSSL said:
You didn't read the OP either. The whole discussion eludes you.

Public nudity is a real problem. In our age of easily and privately accesses Internet porn, relaxed Hollywood movie ratings and there are real fools who think posting nudes on Christian forums is everyone else's problem.

There is a real problem. The problem is that many Christians do not take the issue seriously.

while i agree that internet porn is a major problem..... even a blight on society ... and i also don;t appreciate shock troop tactics of people who purposefully post nudity or turn exhibitionist for the sake of controversy...........  ..... i don;t see piper mentioning that or even alluding to it anywhere in his article......  ??? ....... he seems to be focused entirely on personal clothing choices.... or lack of them thereof.... .......

Exactly.  Which is why it's obvious FSSL was changing the subject.  Peter Piper's misguided rant wasn't about looking at pornography or even just looking at nudity.  It was about rebelling against God by not wearing clothes.  That's such a bizarre thing to rant about, I first assumed it WAS about looking at nudity. 

If that's where Peter Piper intended to go with his argument, his thought car must have broken down along the way, because he never made it there. 

 
Yep, prophet raises an important point. The cited passage pertains to elders.

And RT is also right that Piper is off on a weird tangent by making it about rebellion.

Also, I will not post, and have not posted, any fully nude pics here, in deference to the site's standards. Though I reserve the right to post pics of anyone who is legally clothed (by usual US standards).

Nor would I walk nude on the streets of any US city, though if I should happen to visit that town in the south of France with a nudist quarter, that would be a different matter. But I generally avoid clothing, or lack thereof, that doesn't allow me to conceal at least some weapons.

 
The Rogue Tomato said:
Exactly.  Which is why it's obvious FSSL was changing the subject.  Peter Piper's misguided rant wasn't about look

Me changing the subject? Goodness... You had no idea that the OP and article were about public nudity.

Perhaps, if the article had a masked superhero with nude women and filthy jokes, you would have actually paid attention and read the article more than once ;)
 
Remember, Tim, you are dealing with a guy who doesn't think naked people in pornography or movies are in the public.
 
Funny how, in these nudity-centered perverted views of scripture threads, almost everyone in the thread is someone I have on ignore (Tim, FSSL, Ransom, and before he took a break, ALAYMAN).

I sense a pattern of obsession with these people. 

 
The Rogue Tomato said:
Funny how, in these nudity-centered perverted views of scripture threads, almost everyone in the thread is someone I have on ignore (Tim, FSSL, Ransom, and before he took a break, ALAYMAN).

I sense a pattern of obsession with these people.

Give us time! We might even post pictures from our favorite sites!
 
FSSL said:
Remember, Tim, you are dealing with a guy who doesn't think naked people in pornography or movies are in the public.

I don't think so either. "in public" is nekkid people walking down the street. Porn and movies are things you don't see unless you make a choice to see than.
 
Izdaari said:
I don't think so either. "in public" is nekkid people walking down the street. Porn and movies are things you don't see unless you make a choice to see than.

That is a pretty restrictive understanding of the term "public." The ONLY way porn works on the internet or in magazines or in the movies is is the PUBLIC indulges or supports those industries.

That is why you don't think nudity should be placed on this public forum. It would not just be seen by you, but by everyone.
 
Tim said:
Izdaari said:
FSSL said:
Remember, Tim, you are dealing with a guy who doesn't think naked people in pornography or movies are in the public.

I don't think so either. "in public" is nekkid people walking down the street. Porn and movies are things you don't see unless you make a choice to see than.

It isn't exactly private nudity. I mean, how could millions of people seeing someone in a film naked be considered private?
How could millions of people reading a book be considered private?
How could millions of people making love to their sweeties, behind locked doors and closed curtains be considered private?
Indeed, how could anything you do in private be considered private by that standard?
 
The Rogue Tomato said:
Izdaari said:
Izdaari said:
FSSL said:
Are you for public nudity?

Only when in a socially appropriate venue. Which would not be a city street anywhere in the US.

I forgot to mention where it would be appropriate. There\s a town on the French Riviera, I forget the name of it, that has a nudist quarter. Also on the designated nude beach nearby, and on other such beaches, wherever they may be.

So this is about public nudity?  You mean walking down the street without any clothes on?  Wow, Peter Piper sure addresses the pressing spiritual issues of the day, doesn't he?  I mean, there's an epidemic of Christians promenading around in public stark naked, so I'm sure glad he's calling attention to this travesty.

To which FSSL replied (based on someone who quoted him), "Yes, didn't you read the OP?"

In other words, FSSL first criticized me for not realizing this was about walking down the street naked. 

Now FSSL says, "you are dealing with a guy who doesn't think naked people in pornography or movies are in the public."

In other words, FSSL redefines "public nudity" whichever way he wants at any given moment in order to make a smartass remark.
 
In a theater is indeed invitation only. If you don't buy a ticket, you don't get in. And yes, they will stop you if you haven't. Unless you sneak in... but that would be illegal.
 
Tim said:
Izdaari said:
In a theater is indeed invitation only. If you don't buy a ticket, you don't get in. And yes, they will stop you if you haven't. Unless you sneak in... but that would be illegal.

It is "can I afford it" only ....
Yeah, that too! Discrimination against the poor, that's what it is! ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top