RE: Kicka, part 3 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [People] >> Women Only



Message

Brandy -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/23/2008 11:52:05 PM)

It's ok Crystal I should have prefaced with saying that I understand personal preference/health but was interested in those that stand by it based on it being said so in the Bible.



spitzu -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/23/2008 11:58:19 PM)

Well, see, I did say that... but I also said that it's not a matter of sin to me. [:)]

I mean, there were many laws God had in place that had other value for one reason or other... lots of cleanliness issues were taken care of with those laws. So, no, we don't follow them all but there are some we feel were more than just setting His people apart, so it only makes sense to do what we feel is best for our bodies.

(BTW, I probably will not circumcise, sooo there you go. [8D])



peculiar_lady2 -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/24/2008 12:31:31 AM)

we don't follow it BECAUSE it's the law, it just happens to be a "law"............we follow the ones we do for other reasons (personal taste, sensitivities, convictions, etc)



spitzu -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/24/2008 1:35:58 AM)

Jeanie, any updates?



lexie -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/24/2008 9:20:42 AM)

We don't eat a lot of pork.....Dh won't eat it unless it's really well cooked, so he won't eat it unless he's seen it being cooked. It stems from growing up around animals and seeing how dirty they can be (that is why I make sure that when I do buy pork it is raised in the best conditions.)

But like Crystal said, there are reasons why some things were law beyond setting yourself apart, and you have to give thought to that. I think we are in a better position in that farming practices are getting better again and we have the option of organic, free-range, grain fed, etc and most importantly we are able to find out where we are getting our animals from so we can factor that into our choices.



Mrs.Wifey -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/24/2008 11:03:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spitzu

Sure, free from the law... that's why I said it's not a sin issue. But I still think there was a dietary reason for the law to begin with. Pork is hard to digest for one. Just because something is permissible doesn't mean it's beneficial.



Exactly. I think that the Apostle Paul said exactly what Crystal did in regards to eating pork(and other matters of levitical law) "everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial". And like Crystal said, it's purely health preference for us, we don't feel like it's a sin issue if we eat pork(cause we do still eat bacon a couple times a month).



spitzu -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/24/2008 2:28:09 PM)

Goodness, I hope my posts last night made sense. I had a migraine and should have been in bed. lol



ThursdaysChild -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/24/2008 3:47:15 PM)

We are no longer bound by the law, however, it is necessary for Sunday's sermons to be full of law and Gospel. If you don't hear the law, then how do you know what you need forgiveness for and why?

As for child sponsorship...I think it's up to what you feel compelled by the Spirit to do.

Jeanie- How are your friends doing?



ncgrlnhisgrip -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/24/2008 5:39:42 PM)

Don't believe a word from Crys---she's really a closet-barbecue-lover. [8D]

I am usually in the minority, but I don't follow any OT law unless it is re-instated in the NT. That's just a personal belief. They always taught in school that there were "ceremonial" laws and "social" laws and then the "lifestyle" laws and that you only had to follow the ones that they said to follow. But somehow I never saw that distinction in the Scripture- only the teachers and preachers picking and choosing which laws to follow/not follow (ie Lev. 28 where tattoos = no, but facial hair = okay).

Jeanie, praying also and hoping for an update soon!



Mrs.Wifey -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/24/2008 5:50:32 PM)

quote:

I am usually in the minority,


You really think that's the minority? All of the churches we have ever attended have been the same way... We don't eat pork for health reasons, but even if it wasn't in the Bible I could still make it a "dirty" meat based on the way it's raised and killed.

What about certain things that are reiterated in the NT? Like women not speaking in church, and wearing a head covering? I have really been pondering that one lately.



daughter_of_faith -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/24/2008 9:31:06 PM)

Head covering: open to interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11....

quote:

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

8For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.


The women speaking in church is much the same (open to interpretation in light of the times of that day...in that women were not usually educated...so one could say that the woman was like a child today...in that she should not have spoken in church). 1 Timothy 2....

quote:

8I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.



spitzu -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/24/2008 9:32:43 PM)

That is not the minority in mainstream Christianity.



lexie -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/25/2008 7:38:40 AM)

The only churches I have come across that teach you shouldn't eat pork and other bottom-feeders are the adventist churches (a friend of mine gave me a big package of what they don't eat and why...I should read through it sometime.)

quote:

What about certain things that are reiterated in the NT? Like women not speaking in church, and wearing a head covering? I have really been pondering that one lately.


I personally feel that there is a lot in the NT like what you posted above that are personal conviction but now law. Whereas in the OT, these things were law and must be practiced, we are free from the law, and free to choose if it's something we want to carry on (personally, not as a church...because I wouldn't stay in a church that tells me I can't talk!) I feel that, like the pork issue, there were things that were said for a reason, and we need to look at those reasons ourselves to decide if it's something necessary in our relationship with God.

I dunno...I could change my mind on that the more I learn and grow[:D]



ThursdaysChild -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/25/2008 7:44:57 AM)

There was a movement of women in Corinth during Paul's time who not only shunned wearing a veil but would even shave their heads. They were the ancient world's version of hardcore feminists. Also prostitutes in Corinth didn't wear veils so that added to the scandal that these women caused.



Sideways -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/25/2008 7:46:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: daughter_of_faith

The women speaking in church is much the same (open to interpretation in light of the times of that day...in that women were not usually educated...so one could say that the woman was like a child today...in that she should not have spoken in church). 1 Timothy 2....


I was always taught that the women in that church were especially disruptive, shouting out, yelling and carrying on, which is why they were shut up. But not being educated makes a lot of sense.

I need to find the back up for why I was told they were just to disruptive.



Georgia-Peach -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/25/2008 8:27:34 AM)

Does everyone read both the OT and NT, even if you do not follow the laws of the OT? Just curious [:)]



manda59 -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/25/2008 8:33:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Georgia-Peach
Does everyone read both the OT and NT, even if you do not follow the laws of the OT? Just curious [:)]



Absolutely!

I especially love Isaiah, Ezekiel, the Minor Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes. I've read the whole of it through from beginning to end too, and really enjoyed that.



peculiar_lady2 -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/25/2008 9:23:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Georgia-Peach

Does everyone read both the OT and NT, even if you do not follow the laws of the OT? Just curious [:)]

yes,,,it's always good to know where your roots are....plus like the old saying, "the Old is the New concealed and the New is the Old revealed"....they both go hand in hand



isaacsmom -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/25/2008 9:34:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Georgia-Peach

Does everyone read both the OT and NT, even if you do not follow the laws of the OT? Just curious [:)]


Oh, yes. I read the Bible from cover to cover for the first time when I was 8 years old (I read it through in a year) and I read it every year for several years after that. It was very strongly encouraged by my parents (they started us out reading the NT through in a year when we could read well). We still do studies from the OT frequently in Sunday School. Honestly, that is where some of the most enthralling stories from the Bible are! I think it's very important that a Christian is very familiar with both, since the New fulfills the Old. It's beautiful to see the whole picture.



solo_soprano22 -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/25/2008 10:52:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sideways

quote:

ORIGINAL: daughter_of_faith

The women speaking in church is much the same (open to interpretation in light of the times of that day...in that women were not usually educated...so one could say that the woman was like a child today...in that she should not have spoken in church). 1 Timothy 2....


I was always taught that the women in that church were especially disruptive, shouting out, yelling and carrying on, which is why they were shut up. But not being educated makes a lot of sense.

I need to find the back up for why I was told they were just to disruptive.


I don't get deep into religous study (only for ethics), but many of my female friends who study that believe that the uneducated aspect was the main reason for such commands...not what a lot of Christians usually speculate was the reason.



manda59 -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/25/2008 10:56:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sideways
I was always taught that the women in that church were especially disruptive, shouting out, yelling and carrying on, which is why they were shut up. But not being educated makes a lot of sense.

I need to find the back up for why I was told they were just to disruptive.



At the church where I was saved I was taught that the culture at the time meant that women were not only not very educated, but were also not included in corporate devotions; that the men sat in a circle and the women had to sit all together, quite a way away from them.

So if they heard anything that they wanted to ask about, they'd have to shout out to make themselves heard - which is why the instruction was to ask their husbands when they got home.



daughter_of_faith -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/25/2008 12:15:06 PM)

With all of that said, does the not speaking out apply in today's churches then? What about women leaders?



danas_mom -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/25/2008 2:15:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Georgia-Peach

Does everyone read both the OT and NT, even if you do not follow the laws of the OT? Just curious [:)]


Absolutely! I read through the Bible in it's entirety every year - the OT once, the NT three or four times depending on how much time I have to devote to it. (I try to read a different Bible each time too, for the different study notes and/or differences in translations. Right now I'm reading thru with the NIV Archaeological Study Bible.)

Paul says in Colossians that the things of the OT (specifically the laws, but I think in many ways it applies to everything) were a shadow of the things to come, the reality of which is found in Christ. In order for there to be a shadow, there has to be something there to cast it. So I try to look at the laws and the events of the OT through the mindset of 'what was this a shadow of? What truth about Christ, and/or our life in him, were we meant to better understand by this?' It brings a great richness to the Word as a whole to look at it that way.

I believe that churches that preach only out of the NT do a great disservice to believers.



magdaleine -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/25/2008 2:57:46 PM)

quote:

The only churches I have come across that teach you shouldn't eat pork and other bottom-feeders are the adventist churches (a friend of mine gave me a big package of what they don't eat and why...I should read through it sometime.)

I grew up in the Seventh-day Adventist church, Lexie, so if you have questions, I can probably answer them.

quote:

Does everyone read both the OT and NT, even if you do not follow the laws of the OT?

I've been reading my Bible cover to cover for decades. You can't really understand the New Testament if you don't know the Old. Danas_Mom, I'm using the NIV Archaelogical Study Bible too. It's cool, isn't it?



TwinCityGirl -> RE: Kicka, part 3 (8/25/2008 2:58:12 PM)

Hello, and Welcome to Kicka, Tinkerbell!!! [sm=wave.gif]



Page: <<   < prev  89 90 [91] 92 93   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI