Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Emma]

Right some do this but in all if you follow simplicity, and choose to be Christlike it automatically comes this way because it is no longer necessity for "vanity". Vanity will get you nowhere you will shun the very best of it. Vanity will not get you into the gates. Vanity if bigger then you think that harbours unseen sin. Some do not like to take the chance of this to obstain public opinions and different lifestyles. The memonites, amish take this seriously and so should we.

If you wear a gold or silver ring what is the difference of wearing it on your toes, your nose, your ears, your skin as skin is skin anywhere you see it. Are you following the tradition of men??? Then if you have justifyed that then ....why not? It's beauty, it's costly, and it's vanity with no excuses. why not use it to have beauty, and forget the rest as we are most beautiful with it.  What an excuse for a whole denomination to put into the church manual to go against what is plain, clear and what God has said in his scripture. This change can now all be seen on "Hope" channel. so I do consider this to be a true stumbling block! and some choose to do this but I would not take the chance...why because I do think jewelry is pretty. Some think that allagator meat is good too.  One thing for sure one might take note of the dress of Jesus. didn't see any rings on fingers or read about any on Jesus. Why not if there is nothing wrong with it. Sentamentalism, forget it. It's your own thing again. In his time He Only will give out a crown of jewels as we throw them back as his feet to show our love more for Him instead of worthless stones.

tinka,

What do you think about men wearing neckties?
[/qu

And what about men who wear neckties with expensive pins?

[tinka]

Right some do this but in all if you follow simplicity, and choose to be Christlike it automatically comes this way because it is no longer necessity for "vanity". Vanity will get you nowhere you will shun the very best of it. Vanity will not get you into the gates. Vanity if bigger then you think that harbours unseen sin. Some do not like to take the chance of this to obstain public opinions and different lifestyles. The Mennonites, Amish take this seriously and so should we.

If you wear a gold or silver ring what is the difference of wearing it on your toes, your nose, your ears, your skin as skin is skin anywhere you see it. Are you following the tradition of men??? Then if you have justified that then ....why not? It's beauty, it's costly, and it's vanity with no excuses. why not use it to have beauty, and forget the rest as we are most beautiful with it.  What an excuse for a whole denomination to put into the church manual to go against what is plain, clear and what God has said in his scripture. This change can now all be seen on "Hope" channel. so I do consider this to be a true stumbling block! and some choose to do this but I would not take the chance...why because I do think jewelry is pretty. Some think that alligator meat is good too.  One thing for sure one might take note of the dress of Jesus. didn't see any rings on fingers or read about any on Jesus. Why not if there is nothing wrong with it. Sentimentalism, forget it. It's your own thing again. In his time He Only will give out a crown of jewels as we throw them back as his feet to show our love more for Him instead of worthless stones.

tinka,

What do you think about men wearing neckties?
[/qu

And what about men who wear neckties with expensive pins?

Snoopy and Emma
We have been instructed not to make spectacles of our selves in dressing different in society to bring attention to our selves. That we must stay in the realm of exceptable dress from the era we live in.

For men there also was changes from ties and bows from different eras. The one exceptable is what all wear today and ties are common to be known as dress for suits and ties. No, an expensive pin in the tie is not a necessity but again a vanity thing. a pin to hold down the tie sometimes is necessity for some men. like a jeweled watch. but yet a watch is of necessity so be modest. Jewels are vanity to show you can afford them. Should you be all jeweled up when others you are around do not have even enough food to eat?? Does that create a feeling in the less fortunate when their necessities can't be met? Are you a stumbling block to cause them feelings of want from you??
The Amish make money from their spectacle. The Mennonite's dress in very simplicity of which I like totally common. The woman never wear pants and very feminine clean and neat with no mad hair do s . Most of them are very wealthy and do not wear it on their sleeve and they help also their own from great stewardship that is visible.  Somehow, what in the world happened to us??? as we look most worldly with latest styles of whatever. Not class, but syles we choose of mostly sexuality look of mostly we all should hide instead of attention getting. 

I have always like suspenders on men under jackets and I do not know why but then again, we have some that use the suspenders without jackets that they then present a whole different view of the fanatical suspender group that no shaving accompanies this style of 1800's and not of this era. and then a spectale is observed. Dress where no one notices strangeness.  We have to discern, neatness, common effect and quit the "character stuff".

[princessdi]

Because those instructions notwithstanding, the church cannot make a strong case, and have had to back down from their official stance.  Nobody has any trouble making a case for the biblical Sabbath, OT or NT.  It should be the same. 

It is a corporate policy to dictate modest dress, mostly amongst women.  It doesn't even include men.  It is also meant to make visible the change that should come from inside out, before the inner change has begun, or I should say whether or not the inner change has occurred.  For the most part this has produced quite a few palin looking mean spirited, self righteous church folk, not even christians.  So it doesn't work.

Those are only a few issues I see. Plus, as I said, I have never, ever had a problem being identified as a christian, where ever I go.  That alone is good enough for me.

Why do you feel that Peter and Paul's instruction in the NT does not constitute credible biblical support?

I don't know where he got it from, and I dont' care.  I was born and raised SDA, and have yet to get  credible biblical support fo this policy. 

There have been an awful lot of folks of many faiths who believed that there was biblical support for fallen mortals abstaining from needless adornment.

Did John Wesley get his views on the subject from the Puritans?

[GRAT]

You can tell a Mennonite woman from any direction.  All the dresses are the same style and they don't cut their hair.  At some age the girls hair goes into a cap on the back of the neck, all the same style.  It is not up to date or even half modern.  They stand out.   One persons simplicity might be anothers worldly look.  And not all jewlery is expensive.  (I don't wear it myself as I don't want to be a stumbling block for someone else, but don't judge someone else if that is their choice.)  How far do you take the simplicity thing.  You can tell the haves from the have nots by more than jewlery.  Do they envy my house,clothes, car etc.  Do I live like a pauper so no one else feels bad?  (By the way, no one would want my car.  It runs but would not be the envy of anyone!!) Just my two cents worth.

[Johann]

When I was a small boy growing up Adventist but in a Lutherans society I saw the gowns the Lutheran parsons wear when they preach as a mark of the Beast. Later on I discovered that those gowns are really the kind of clothes any respectable gentleman would wear during the days of the Reformation, or when their Church originated by none other than Martin Luther. So in that way their gown is similar to the clothes the Amish are wearing., just from a different age.

Why do we then insist on wearing a modern dress with the tie, which is a modern invention, when we preach? Is that any more according to an elevated pattern?

Could you imagine George Vandeman or Doug Batchelor in a gown when they appear preaching on TV?

Where is the standard pattern for Adventist preachers designed and given a celestial approval?

[mrst53]

When did the idea of "Sunday Best" come into being?  God sees us all week in what we wear, why should Sunday or Saturday be any different?

[tinka]

When did the idea of "Sunday Best" come into being?  God sees us all week in what we wear, why should Sunday or Saturday be any different?

It came with the "traditions"  of men instead of following the law of God. Find that in book of Daniel. Going to meet and worship the creator should bring out our best on the Santified Day of Worship that is in the 10 Commandments that have not been done away with only through the eyes of following false doctrine.

[SDAminister]

When I was a small boy growing up Adventist but in a Lutherans society I saw the gowns the Lutheran parsons wear when they preach as a mark of the Beast. Later on I discovered that those gowns are really the kind of clothes any respectable gentleman would wear during the days of the Reformation, or when their Church originated by none other than Martin Luther. ...

Martin Luther didn't originate the Lutheran Church. That came later, no?

SDAminister

[Bob Pickle]

Because those instructions notwithstanding, the church cannot make a strong case, and have had to back down from their official stance.

I've always thought that a strong case could be made on that subject, and I have yet to hear that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has ever backed down from its official stance on the matter.

Sure, we have members that don't follow our teachings on that subject, but that is the way it is on many subjects. We're certainly against divorce without biblical grounds, but there are members who've done it anyway, such as Danny Shelton. But just because Danny did it doesn't mean that the Church has backed down from its official stance on divorce.

We've even got members who eat pork. The Church certainly hasn't backed down on that one either.

[Murcielago]

Lol... I am, ummm, somewhere in the middle of the age thing there... and single.

Murielago,
OH now, so you are a single guy, careful I might have to fix you up with a beautiful girl. Could you be late thirties, or early forties? or late forties or maybe you really are taken by now. 

[princessdi]

Bob, they really never uniformly enforced the policy regarding wearing wedding bands(jewelry, right?).  It is really only an issue here in the US, and other places where wedding rings are tradition and not law.  They ran into trouble when they sent missionaries[couples] to mission fields in countries where the wedding band was law, and the policy was not enforced.  Well, we all know that folks don't sped their entire lives in the mission field and they come home to the US........they refused to take off those bands and GC had not a leg to stand on to require them to do so.  If they had biblical support for it, believe me they would have used it, but they did not.

Also you can no longer keep any member from serving if they wear them.  "Just because the Bible worker/pastor, even Bible said so", is not going to be a good enough answer on judgement day, because God focuses on the inward, man focuses on the outward appearance.  He wants to know if you heart is right and we all know that "looking the part" is not indication of what is on the inside.  Fols fake it all the time...........is this not what you are saying that Danny does.  Is he not Vegan?  Does he not attend services on Sabbath  Is he not head of a Sabbath Keeping Ministry that also preaches the 3 Angels Message?  How is all this outward expression of Adventism working for him?

i

I've always thought that a strong case could be made on that subject, and I have yet to hear that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has ever backed down from its official stance on the matter.

Sure, we have members that don't follow our teachings on that subject, but that is the way it is on many subjects. We're certainly against divorce without biblical grounds, but there are members who've done it anyway, such as Danny Shelton. But just because Danny did it doesn't mean that the Church has backed down from its official stance on divorce.

We've even got members who eat pork. The Church certainly hasn't backed down on that one either.

[tinka]

Bob, they really never uniformly enforced the policy regarding wearing wedding bands(jewelry, right?).  It is really only an issue here in the US, and other places where wedding rings are tradition and not law.  They ran into trouble when they sent missionaries[couples] to mission fields in countries where the wedding band was law, and the policy was not enforced.  Well, we all know that folks don't sped their entire lives in the mission field and they come home to the US........they refused to take off those bands and GC had not a leg to stand on to require them to do so.  If they had biblical support for it, believe me they would have used it, but they did not.

Also you can no longer keep any member from serving if they wear them.  "Just because the Bible worker/pastor, even Bible said so", is not going to be a good enough answer on judgement day, because God focuses on the inward, man focuses on the outward appearance.  He wants to know if you heart is right and we all know that "looking the part" is not indication of what is on the inside.  Fols fake it all the time...........is this not what you are saying that Danny does.  Is he not Vegan?  Does he not attend services on Sabbath  Is he not head of a Sabbath Keeping Ministry that also preaches the 3 Angels Message?  How is all this outward expression of Adventism working for him?

i

I've always thought that a strong case could be made on that subject, and I have yet to hear that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has ever backed down from its official stance on the matter.

Sure, we have members that don't follow our teachings on that subject, but that is the way it is on many subjects. We're certainly against divorce without biblical grounds, but there are members who've done it anyway, such as Danny Shelton. But just because Danny did it doesn't mean that the Church has backed down from its official stance on divorce.

We've even got members who eat pork. The Church certainly hasn't backed down on that one either.

I would really like to know why you claim to be an Adventist when the only thing I've heard  is your mention of being a SS teacher and call Sabbath Sabbath. You have many many differences from the time I first started to watch the posts and discovered your not into SP. A true Adventist knows exactly what SP is all about and what it is for. The best psychology books ever written for a Christian's understanding and well being physically and mentally as a true Christian and in lower level for even almost uneducated can understand with the least reading skills.

 It has been impossible for you to follow along and get into what everyone states correctly and knowledgeable of what they are meaning on many different subjects.

I've watched you argue the points of wine, star wars, games (chess), movies and abortion justifications of what ever floats your boat and all points either from the far left and the far right and back again. I've watched you jump back and forth till it was mind boggling on the DS case, one day your against all action and the next for it. The statements that are plain Biblical on this is where we are not to touch our productive organs including men and I did not know that until not long ago. But to save lives in case of disease a women has surgery. No matter what statements in SP that are clear and match the Bible completely with no doubt you find some story of the church where they were not correct in their foundation. Are you denying God His Supreme work of His doing?  But what I find is that when like posters come on here you attach to them very quickly.

 This religion is different from all. This religion is based for the obeying of God's will and not our own likes and dislikes taking the Bible as it's foundation in its entirety. I can find what ever my preferences are in any other church that I want to. I am looking to obey, trust and have faith in Words made known to me through scripture. It is a fact that our hearts read and pick what we want but I make it a fact of reading correct English word for word and except what it says instead of my own interpretation. You can go to dooms day and I am "sealed" in (belief, sanctified with the SDA belief and so far working on (God's Justification of me and hoping for Salvation of it) the Bible, what God has given in prophets, messengers and forefathers of our denomination. Our foundation has never changed but the people have and the people did the confusion and the "new age changes" to where you cannot tell them from worldly "incests" of churches. All though we have been given the opportunity and knowledge of true meaning of Ten Commandments there are those that have open hearts that will soon follow at their time before too late. Many of these true blues of God's are still everywhere in the working of God's hands and we are only His instruments. Blessed are the those that keep the Commandments of God as they shall enter the gates.  simple rule here right at the end. Killing is one of them.  Do you call it forceful rule to legislate "no Killing"?  The fact is not taking away a women's rights of her own body --but we are trying to stop the "Killing" of the meek and helpless within the sin she committed that is not her individual body anymore. as now this concerns God's mechanism of a different person with individual rights created by His creation's way of life. Bet you don't get it yet and neither does S. and with this stance it appears that God's brand new individual baby now has no right's. along with abortion comes the sin of complete selfishness to another and no way out of this one. In case of mother's death, vegetable from sin within would be the only case as the selfishness caused the deformed vegetable of which now can be seen through technology. and that charge will still be on your disrespect of the use of God's creational gifts. You squandered it, blew it, tortured the late fetus, drugged it knifed it and hated it. God is love and that is not...... Justifyable, I should say not. Forgiveable yes, under true repentance.

[Bob Pickle]

Also you can no longer keep any member from serving if they wear them.

This is a common misunderstanding. The request that churches not prevent people from being members or officers specifically concerned folks that conscientiously wear a simple wedding band.

Thus, that request had nothing to do with studded wedding rings, or those who wear a wedding band for other than conscientious reasons.

[princessdi]

Not working, Bob.  A wedding band with one diamond, is still simple.  But you are making my point.  There is not this type of confusion surrounding the doctrine of the Sabbath. 

[Bob Pickle]

Not working, Bob.  A wedding band with one diamond, is still simple.  But you are making my point.  There is not this type of confusion surrounding the doctrine of the Sabbath. 

I don't see the confusion.

What percentage of folks out there do you think wear simple wedding bands because their conscience tells them they have to, or else they would be sinning?