Reverence in God's house

And the lack of dress entices the lusts, but you would like to deny that.

 

If someone can look at another person's upper arm and get turned on.. that person has some real problems!!!!

 

Yes, and that love is expressed outwardly because men don't see our hearts the way God does.

If God even looks upon sin he judges it, so how is it you thin anyone's heart is completely void of any sin? Do you REALLY want God seeing your whole heart? You'd best be thanking Him for that Blood that washes away our sins.

Since what comes out of the mouth reveals the heart, and what we look like to tohers tells them something about us, shouldn't we be more attentive to our dress as to not entice the lusts of the depraved nature?

[qote]Perhaps we could find some grace on this issue if our hearts were tuned to Him and not to the appearance of others around us.[/QUOTE]Wouldn't it be easy enough to show an outward expression of our hearts being tuned to God in appearance instead of being tuned into what everyone else in the world wears?

The truth is God does look upon the heart where no man can see it all. Man can only see our outward expressions which should reveal our hearts and there be no conflict to the eyes of our beholders between the two.

 

It's the beginning of enticement, Tim, and people do have real problems; it's called the sin nature. Why entice it?

Don't you act all holier than thou and try and tell us all you don't get ideas when you see your wife's upper arms, or is she that ugly!:tongue3:

(That's what you get for the taliban remark!):smilewinkgrin:

 

No, because common sense tells MOST of us that business attire is a suit and tie.

No, John, the Temple is far more formal than the Tabernacle.

Are you trying to say the Tabernacle, which is found in the wilderness, is as beautiful in appearance as the Temple in Jerusalem?

Maybe you should only visit the wilderness instead of wandering in it!

Scripture doesn't have to tell us what common sense already does.:smilewinkgrin:

 

Assuming you're referring to me, that's not what I said. I said IF a person uses the analogy of "dressing up" for a job interview to assert the position of formal attire being the standard for modesty, THEN that person must accept the idea of informal businnes attire being being a standard form modesty, since daily attire at a job is informal, and not formal.

If you are getting sexual arousal out of an "upper portion of the arm" or "lack of dress", you've got a serious problem. The fact that you're trying to blame your problem on others demonstrates that you've got two serious problems. The fact that you're perverting scripture to fit your viewpoint, when, in fact, no scripture supporting yoru position exists, demonstrates that you've got three serious problems.

No matter how you slice it, the problem is yours, not mankind's.

 

So I guess that those missionaries who went to work with peoples who tended to go naked lusted after them before they preached the Gospel to them? And I suppose that you would say that I lusted after the women that I saw bare-breasted while feeding their babies on the mission field?

NO SIR- the problem is not a lack of dress, but an evil heart.

 

Really? I'm a seasoned business traveller, and deal with high profile clients all over the United States. When I visit a client site, I always find out what their standard attire is, and I match their dress. Most often, standard business attire is casual pants (dockers, etc) and a collared shirt (polo shirt nor button up shirt). Suit and Tie as standard business attrire is not common. Common sense concurs with me on the topic, and fails to bolster your assertion.

Given the fact that we don't worship in temples or tabernacles, it's irrelevant (in fact, the early churches were in peoples homes). The fact that the verse is analogous only furthers to make your use of it for this purpose more irrelevant. The fact is, you're incorrectly assuming that informal attire is akin to "badger skins". That assumption is not scripturally consistent. Scripture calls for modest attire. Modesty is not synonymous with formality.

Then, you acknowlege that scripture doesn't support your view. At least we agree on that.

 

Not when you're about the King's business. Maybe that's the problem, we forget we're ambassadors for Christ. Besides, we're not talking about out in the everyday world, we're talking about reverencing God in the church house now, aren't we?

I believe your conversations with me, about me should not make allusionsto me be sexually aroused,

Nce that God called you to judge me and my "problems"

Now we see the phariseiacal side coming out in you.

Yep, just like the pharisees did, lay burdens upon people that no one was able to bear.

 

Yep, that's exactly what Adam and Eve did, they tried to cover their evil hearts with fig leaves because they realized they were naked. Did God clothe their hearts or their bodies, mexdeaf?

Seemas God thinks more of clothing the body than the heart. He washes hearts, not clothes. We wash our robes white in His Blood.

Sems you and your counterpart have things a weebit messed up.

It can only take special grace to not lust after the "natives", but no how, no where does that consitute nakedness in a civilized society.

Betcha looked though, didn't ya!

We're talking about being a witness to a lost world. Do you advocate that missionaries take their clothes off to witness to naked natives? Talk about DRESSING DOWN!!!!!!:laugh:

 

Well, it has become quite obvious that it is a waste of time to debate you because you only come back with innuendo so I will waste no further time trying to reason with you.

 

I accept your reasoning, mexdeaf, it's just that I accept it as inferior to what the bible teaches.

 

Again, both common sense and scripture are lacking in your support.

Hey, you'r the one who stated your problems, so the least you can do is take chage fo them instead of blaming others for them.

Dude, you really should look in the mirror before opening yoru mouth there.

No, we're talking about attire in church. You're claiming that informal attire in church s wrong. You've utterly failed to provide scriptural support, and even moreso failed to provide common sense, for such a claim.

 

OK, OK.. I deserved that!... LOL :laugh:

I understand what you are saying... I disagree.. but I do understand.

It would be like me putting on spandex swim trunks... and going out....
NO...

Bad example!

:smilewinkgrin: