Pastors Leading the flock???)

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

On 09/03/98 at 08:43 PM, ReedActs@AOL.com said:

> Mike:
> I know we have discussed this before and I don't really want to get
>into a discussion of this matter but the programing on TV is
>destructive and not constructive.  It is not conducive to living a holy
>life.  Can you argue with that statement?  Do you think TV''s
>programing *is* conducive to living a holy life?  Do you think TV *is*
>constructive? (spiritually)  

Sigh, I don't want to discuss this either, but this smacks of throwing
the baby out with the bath water.

> You don't think these standards follow logic or make sense? 

Nope.

>If they
>seem illogical to you, I don't know if I can reach you.  I think (guess
>I may be judging here) that it may be that it does make sense but you
>simply don't want to give those little pleasures up.  Or maybe it is
>principle, "I can handle it, I want it, so I am going to have it."  How
>about, "Ain't nobody goin' to tell me what to do!"  I don't know were
>you are coming from on this but again these standards *do* make sense.

Nope, they don't make sense.  You say TV programing is destructive, yet
you have internet access with many orders of magnitude worse programing. 
That makes no logical sense.

> Mike:
> Just out of curiosity, did someone tell you that you won the debate,
>or did you just go away feeling like you did and that they were
>illogical and didn't make sense?

The Pastor said so.  Then I had to refute my points one by one.
 
> Skip:
> That is the crux of the problem.  As a general rule, leadership forms
>a group of rules based on tradition, Bible, and education (yes, that is
>a part of it).  
> 
> Mike:
> Is there a problem here?  Surely you don't have a problem with *all*
>unbiblical traditions do you? If so, I will save your answer to disk
>and remind you of it in December.  The "crux" of the problem is that
>some people just don't like rules.

Yes, I have a problem with traditions, especially when the traditions
cause conflict.

I'm not fond of either Christmas or Easter.
 
> Skip:
> (how many
>times has someone on this list replied the UPCI rules/regs were made by
>Holy Ghost filled prayerful men?) to the leadership.
> 
> Mike:
> As for as I am concerned, I don't care what the UPC "leadership" does.

Doesn't matter to me one way or the other; but, the answer to the above
question is significant.
 
> Skip:
>  There are contradictions in the rules.

> Mike:
> No doubt you feel that way Skip.  And in some churches there may be a
>real or apparent contradiction in the rules or there implementation,
>but the fact of the matter is, we have to have rules, we have to have
>standards, everybody has them.

Biblical based rules don't conflict with each other.
 
>Skip:
> When the standards prevent Jesus Christ and the
>Apostles from preaching in a church the standards are wrong.
> 
> Mike:
> Agreed.

Is that two things we've agreed on this week?  Everyone better get those
you care about won, the rapture takes place in 7 days.

> Skip:
> Oh, my greatest source of iritation is people trying to fix God's
>church.
> 
> Mike:
> That is really weird Skip.  Were you not that guy that wrote about
>looking for the perfect church and what you felt it would be like? 
>Apparently you were trying to fix all the imperfect churches around
>you.  If you ever find it, don't join it cause it will no longer be
>perfect.

I'll assume you didn't understand my sentence in the manner it was ment
so I'll clarify.  I really get iritated by people fixing God's church by
adding their rules to God's rules giving both equal sway.

I was asked to define the perfect church.  I also said I wouldn't join
it not wanting to cause it to become imperfect.

> Skip:
> Modest is modest.
> 
> Mike:
> And you are a debater?  Modesty is relative.  We have guide lines that
>determine modesty.  Some are biblical some are societal some are some
>are drawn by a pastor.
> Everybody has their own idea of where those lines should be drawn, why
>not let the man of God do it?

> Skip:
> A dress down to the
>ankles/wrists and up to the neck isn't modest if it is see-through and
>skin tight (yes, this was on a choir member during a service, more than
>one). 
> 
> Mike:
> ATTENTION!!!  EVEN SKIP HAS STANDARDS!!!!

Sorry to disappoint you, I've been complaining about non-Biblical
standards.  Modesty is Biblical.  Modest is to define in an extreme
case, when clothing is see-through _and_ skin tight nothing is left to
imagination.

SKip

--  
----------------------------------------------------
personal:  http://user.icx.net/~grimel/MyPlace.html

I'm on a journey; "A Journey: Back to the Book of Acts".
Find out why http://user.icx.net/~grimel/back2acts.html

Why do we praise the way we do?
http://user.icx.net/~grimel/back2acts_why_we_praise.html

Best viewed at true colors

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