What Is A Standard?

[Bruh]

Except for you know...the fact that he has come up with his own rules and put a burden on people. But let's not miss the main point or anything.

He hasn't come up with his own rules.

In his mind and heart it in the bible the he understands it.

Look, my wife wears pants and for that reason she wasn't allowed to teach Sunday school. She wasn't given the option that Tom gives the members at the church he pastors.

I spoke with our former pastor and explained to him that she has never wore pants to any church function and I can respect how he interprets scripture. But that I didn't feel that he had the authority to ask her to live this way 24/7 because we honestly don't see what he sees in scripture. But I have no issue with her wearing dresses only to any and all church functions.

He kindly said if she doesn't sign the paper she cannot teach.

I have a lot of respect for Tom allowing the members to have Liberty in this area and he isn't putting a yoke of bondage on them. Over half the church we just left didn't agree with the pants woman issue. But they signed the paper if they wanted to serve in any way shape or form.............well they were allowed to wipe the baby's butts in the nursery.

That's a yoke of bondage what our former pastor is doing to the members, IMO.

 

[RAIDER]

Except for you know...the fact that he has come up with his own rules and put a burden on people. But let's not miss the main point or anything.

He hasn't come up with his own rules.

In his mind and heart it in the bible the he understands it.

Look, my wife wears pants and for that reason she wasn't allowed to teach Sunday school. She wasn't given the option that Tom gives the members at the church he pastors.

I spoke with our former pastor and explained to him that she has never wore pants to any church function and I can respect how he interprets scripture. But that I didn't feel that he had the authority to ask her to live this way 24/7 because we honestly don't see what he sees in scripture. But I have no issue with her wearing dresses only to any and all church functions.

He kindly said if she doesn't sign the paper she cannot teach.

I have a lot of respect for Tom allowing the members to have Liberty in this area and he isn't putting a yoke of bondage on them. Over half the church we just left didn't agree with the pants woman issue. But they signed the paper if they wanted to serve in any way shape or form.............well they were allowed to wipe the baby's butts in the nursery.

That's a yoke of bondage what our former pastor is doing to the members, IMO.

Thank you for common sense.

 

[rsc2a]

Except for you know...the fact that he has come up with his own rules and put a burden on people. But let's not miss the main point or anything.

He hasn't come up with his own rules.

Oh...but he has.

In his mind and heart it in the bible the he understands it.

And he's wrong. What if "in his heart and mind", he suddenly decided that men with darker skin tones (hint, hint) aren't qualified to teach?

And again, why should HIS personal mores dictate the requirements of the entire community of faith?

Look, my wife wears pants and for that reason she wasn't allowed to teach Sunday school. She wasn't given the option that Tom gives the members at the church he pastors.

They aren't given an option...at least a reasonable one.

Don't wear pants - you are allowed to serve as God gifts you.
Wear pants - You cannot serve as God gifts you.

I spoke with our former pastor and explained to him that she has never wore pants to any church function and I can respect how he interprets scripture. But that I didn't feel that he had the authority to ask her to live this way 24/7 because we honestly don't see what he sees in scripture. But I have no issue with her wearing dresses only to any and all church functions.

He kindly said if she doesn't sign the paper she cannot teach.

I have a lot of respect for Tom allowing the members to have Liberty in this area and he isn't putting a yoke of bondage on them. Over half the church we just left didn't agree with the pants woman issue. But they signed the paper if they wanted to serve in any way shape or form.............well they were allowed to wipe the baby's butts in the nursery.

That's a yoke of bondage what our former pastor is doing to the members, IMO.

Funny...that's the same bondage he is placing on his own congregation. Attaching chains to people who are supposed to be defined by the freedom they have.

And, AGAIN, you have a congregation being held captive by the views of one person.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Except for you know...the fact that he has come up with his own rules and put a burden on people. But let's not miss the main point or anything.

He hasn't come up with his own rules.

In his mind and heart it in the bible the he understands it.

Look, my wife wears pants and for that reason she wasn't allowed to teach Sunday school. She wasn't given the option that Tom gives the members at the church he pastors.

And you continue to attend that church?  What's it called?  First Baptist Church of the Made-Up Rools?

 

[Bruh]

Except for you know...the fact that he has come up with his own rules and put a burden on people. But let's not miss the main point or anything.

He hasn't come up with his own rules.

In his mind and heart it in the bible the he understands it.

Look, my wife wears pants and for that reason she wasn't allowed to teach Sunday school. She wasn't given the option that Tom gives the members at the church he pastors.

And you continue to attend that church?  What's it called?  First Baptist Church of the Made-Up Rools?

LOL!

No we don't.

 

[Bruh]

Except for you know...the fact that he has come up with his own rules and put a burden on people. But let's not miss the main point or anything.

He hasn't come up with his own rules.

Oh...but he has.

In his mind and heart it in the bible the he understands it.

And he's wrong. What if "in his heart and mind", he suddenly decided that men with darker skin tones (hint, hint) aren't qualified to teach?

And again, why should HIS personal mores dictate the requirements of the entire community of faith?

Look, my wife wears pants and for that reason she wasn't allowed to teach Sunday school. She wasn't given the option that Tom gives the members at the church he pastors.

They aren't given an option...at least a reasonable one.

Don't wear pants - you are allowed to serve as God gifts you.
Wear pants - You cannot serve as God gifts you.

I spoke with our former pastor and explained to him that she has never wore pants to any church function and I can respect how he interprets scripture. But that I didn't feel that he had the authority to ask her to live this way 24/7 because we honestly don't see what he sees in scripture. But I have no issue with her wearing dresses only to any and all church functions.

He kindly said if she doesn't sign the paper she cannot teach.

I have a lot of respect for Tom allowing the members to have Liberty in this area and he isn't putting a yoke of bondage on them. Over half the church we just left didn't agree with the pants woman issue. But they signed the paper if they wanted to serve in any way shape or form.............well they were allowed to wipe the baby's butts in the nursery.

That's a yoke of bondage what our former pastor is doing to the members, IMO.

Funny...that's the same bondage he is placing on his own congregation. Attaching chains to people who are supposed to be defined by the freedom they have.

And, AGAIN, you have a congregation being held captive by the views of one person.

I was simply going to reply with, ok
But have decided to post something else.

Can you please allow us and Tom, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to interpret scripture?

It seems (at least on the FFF) that if someone doesn't agree 100% with you on something that you think they are stupid and making it up as they go.

I have no issue whatsoever with this area with Tom. I would to God, that my former IFB pastor thought like this.

It seems you want everyone to line up with you 100% and if they don't they are 100% wrong.

 

[rsc2a]

I have no problem at all with you, Tom or anyone else interpreting Scripture for themselves. I don't even particularly care if you agree with my understanding or not. Nor do I think he's making it up. I actually think he heard it from someone else somewhere and latched onto this asinine idea as somehow a measure of holiness. Is he stupid? Who knows? But the idea that Scripture forbids women from wearing pants is getting rid of cockroaches by burning down your house stupid.

As I've stated repeatedly, that's not even the major issue. The issue is that Tom is forcing his own interpretation of Scripture on others and limiting their ability to serve, effectively becoming their personal pope. Quite simply, the issue is that Tom is doing what you have falsely accused me of doing and, while you are falsely attacking me for it, you're giving him a pass.

 

[Bruh]

I have no problem at all with you, Tom or anyone else interpreting Scripture for themselves. I don't even particularly care if you agree with my understanding or not. Nor do I think he's making it up. I actually think he heard it from someone else somewhere and latched onto this asinine idea as somehow a measure of holiness. Is he stupid? Who knows? But the idea that Scripture forbids women from wearing pants is getting rid of cockroaches by burning down your house stupid.

As I've stated repeatedly, that's not even the major issue. The issue is that Tom is forcing his own interpretation of Scripture on others and limiting their ability to serve, effectively becoming their personal pope. Quite simply, the issue is that Tom is doing what you have falsely accused me of doing and, while you are falsely attacking me for it, you're giving him a pass.

You said, I actually think he heard it from someone.

I have learned it's very very very very judgmental to assume something about someone else.

 

[rsc2a]

I have no problem at all with you, Tom or anyone else interpreting Scripture for themselves. I don't even particularly care if you agree with my understanding or not. Nor do I think he's making it up. I actually think he heard it from someone else somewhere and latched onto this asinine idea as somehow a measure of holiness. Is he stupid? Who knows? But the idea that Scripture forbids women from wearing pants is getting rid of cockroaches by burning down your house stupid.

As I've stated repeatedly, that's not even the major issue. The issue is that Tom is forcing his own interpretation of Scripture on others and limiting their ability to serve, effectively becoming their personal pope. Quite simply, the issue is that Tom is doing what you have falsely accused me of doing and, while you are falsely attacking me for it, you're giving him a pass.

You said, I actually think he heard it from someone.

I have learned it's very very very very judgmental to assume something about someone else.

Really? Then you might want t re-read the post you just wrote to me.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I have no problem at all with you, Tom or anyone else interpreting Scripture for themselves. I don't even particularly care if you agree with my understanding or not. Nor do I think he's making it up. I actually think he heard it from someone else somewhere and latched onto this asinine idea as somehow a measure of holiness. Is he stupid? Who knows? But the idea that Scripture forbids women from wearing pants is getting rid of cockroaches by burning down your house stupid.

As I've stated repeatedly, that's not even the major issue. The issue is that Tom is forcing his own interpretation of Scripture on others and limiting their ability to serve, effectively becoming their personal pope. Quite simply, the issue is that Tom is doing what you have falsely accused me of doing and, while you are falsely attacking me for it, you're giving him a pass.

You said, I actually think he heard it from someone.

I have learned it's very very very very judgmental to assume something about someone else.

Given that Pharisaical churches and pastors have been fussing about women wearing pants for ages now, I think it's safe to at least postulate that Tom didn't thunk it up all by hisself.

 

[rsc2a]

I have no problem at all with you, Tom or anyone else interpreting Scripture for themselves. I don't even particularly care if you agree with my understanding or not. Nor do I think he's making it up. I actually think he heard it from someone else somewhere and latched onto this asinine idea as somehow a measure of holiness. Is he stupid? Who knows? But the idea that Scripture forbids women from wearing pants is getting rid of cockroaches by burning down your house stupid.

As I've stated repeatedly, that's not even the major issue. The issue is that Tom is forcing his own interpretation of Scripture on others and limiting their ability to serve, effectively becoming their personal pope. Quite simply, the issue is that Tom is doing what you have falsely accused me of doing and, while you are falsely attacking me for it, you're giving him a pass.

You said, I actually think he heard it from someone.

I have learned it's very very very very judgmental to assume something about someone else.

Given that Pharisaical churches and pastors have been fussing about women wearing pants for ages now, I think it's safe to at least postulate that Tom didn't thunk it up all by hisself.

Actually, I think it would be quite ungenerous to assume he came up with such a dumb application all on his own.

 

[Bruh]

I have no problem at all with you, Tom or anyone else interpreting Scripture for themselves. I don't even particularly care if you agree with my understanding or not. Nor do I think he's making it up. I actually think he heard it from someone else somewhere and latched onto this asinine idea as somehow a measure of holiness. Is he stupid? Who knows? But the idea that Scripture forbids women from wearing pants is getting rid of cockroaches by burning down your house stupid.

As I've stated repeatedly, that's not even the major issue. The issue is that Tom is forcing his own interpretation of Scripture on others and limiting their ability to serve, effectively becoming their personal pope. Quite simply, the issue is that Tom is doing what you have falsely accused me of doing and, while you are falsely attacking me for it, you're giving him a pass.

You said, I actually think he heard it from someone.

I have learned it's very very very very judgmental to assume something about someone else.

Really? Then you might want t re-read the post you just wrote to me.

Ok

 

[Bruh]

Except for you know...the fact that he has come up with his own rules and put a burden on people. But let's not miss the main point or anything.

He hasn't come up with his own rules.

In his mind and heart it in the bible the he understands it.

Look, my wife wears pants and for that reason she wasn't allowed to teach Sunday school. She wasn't given the option that Tom gives the members at the church he pastors.

I spoke with our former pastor and explained to him that she has never wore pants to any church function and I can respect how he interprets scripture. But that I didn't feel that he had the authority to ask her to live this way 24/7 because we honestly don't see what he sees in scripture. But I have no issue with her wearing dresses only to any and all church functions.

He kindly said if she doesn't sign the paper she cannot teach.

I have a lot of respect for Tom allowing the members to have Liberty in this area and he isn't putting a yoke of bondage on them. Over half the church we just left didn't agree with the pants woman issue. But they signed the paper if they wanted to serve in any way shape or form.............well they were allowed to wipe the baby's butts in the nursery.

That's a yoke of bondage what our former pastor is doing to the members, IMO.

Thank you for common sense.

I like standing ovations.