A priori

[Israel]

A man may have skewed vision (think beam and mote) and yet gratefully find he remains under instruction as a member of the household. And for that, thanks be to God, I say! Even learning a love of every word.

As many as I love I rebuke and chasten.

Yet there remain places a man may discover when carried away by his own presumption, that he seeks after grace to escape and a learning to resist a return visit.

The instruction to "let grow together" becomes welcome command to what is growing in the midst of other growing things. The necessity of being under command becomes not burden, but very proof of love. One is reminded there is indeed a commander, a captain. Even if at times and when necessary, he is reminded with stripes. He is learning he has been made fit for them, and the constancy he begins to learn there speak of the consistency of life.

Indulgence is born in the pot of religiosity, abundance of affection is revealed in the crucible of Jesus Christ.

 

[Spotlite]

How do you distinguish between what is God's pure unadulterated law and how you understand it?

There are certain things that are given such as thou shall not, and then there’s the “even nature itself teaches you” and considering that the law is written into our hearts.........

Thou shalt not kill is pretty straight forward. But what is dressing modest? Or, what is the proper length of hair?

Some say long dresses and hair for women, I ask how long is long enough.

But realistically, modest is when you dress not to draw attention to yourself, and your hair or the way you dress should be worn to where no one had to to wonder if you’re either male or female. To me, that’s natural.

That’s how I apply everything. If it doesn’t define something such as modest or length (as in this example), it falls under personal convictions.

 

[Artfuldodger]

There are certain things that are given such as thou shall not, and then there’s the “even nature itself teaches you” and considering that the law is written into our hearts.........

Thou shalt not kill is pretty straight forward. But what is dressing modest? Or, what is the proper length of hair?

Some say long dresses and hair for women, I ask how long is long enough.

But realistically, modest is when you dress not to draw attention to yourself, and your hair or the way you dress should be worn to where no one had to to wonder if you’re either male or female. To me, that’s natural.

That’s how I apply everything. If it doesn’t define something such as modest or length (as in this example), it falls under personal convictions.

God's pure unadulterated law and how you understand it? Then we also have to understand what part of this law Jesus died for.
Then as we learn through science that perhaps the drunkard was an alcoholic. One who may struggle to the grave with his addiction.

We use our personal conviction to decide we're just overweight and not a glutton. That playing the lottery isn't the same as gambling.

Also as you noticed things such as modesty change over time. Paul said that women should not adorn themselves by wearing gold, pearls, or expensive clothes.
Why isn't that cut and dry? What gives man the right to change as time changes? Why does man get to pick and choose what part of God's law he can use personal conviction on?
If you can use it for women to wear pants and gold then perhaps I'll use it to be full of anger, lust, pride, and to not forgive others.

My Mom was never allowed to wear pants growing up. She wasn't even allowed to play the Old Maids card game. I was in about the 6th grade before even a few girls wore pants to school. No women or girls wore pants to my Church during this time in the 60's.

Soon though in the latter part of the 60's girls, not women started wearing pants. Most full grown women did not wear pants to go to town or to work even when the younger generation did.

That was given to show that man changes. Perhaps God does too. Perhaps the bible was written for us but not to us. Gad had to know that we would use his science to learn, change, and progress.

Jesus died for the Law. That has not changed. Only our perception of how much of that law he died for.

 

[Spotlite]

God's pure unadulterated law and how you understand it? Then we also have to understand what part of this law Jesus died for.
Then as we learn through science that perhaps the drunkard was an alcoholic. One who may struggle to the grave with his addiction.

We use our personal conviction to decide we're just overweight and not a glutton. That playing the lottery isn't the same as gambling.

Also as you noticed things such as modesty change over time. Paul said that women should not adorn themselves by wearing gold, pearls, or expensive clothes.
Why isn't that cut and dry? What gives man the right to change as time changes? Why does man get to pick and choose what part of God's law he can use personal conviction on?
If you can use it for women to wear pants and gold then perhaps I'll use it to be full of anger, lust, pride, and to not forgive others.

My Mom was never allowed to wear pants growing up. She wasn't even allowed to play the Old Maids card game. I was in about the 6th grade before even a few girls wore pants to school. No women or girls wore pants to my Church during this time in the 60's.

Soon though in the latter part of the 60's girls, not women started wearing pants. Most full grown women did not wear pants to go to town or to work even when the younger generation did.

That was given to show that man changes. Perhaps God does too. Perhaps the bible was written for us but not to us. Gad had to know that we would use his science to learn, change, and progress.

Jesus died for the Law. That has not changed. Only our perception of how much of that law he died for.

Our personal convictions are not meant to justify anything, and they’re not meant to place standards on others either. Key word there is personal.

As far as pants, I always ask them to go find that in the Bible. Again, nature will teach us how we should dress. Whatever we wear should not attract attention to ourselves and there should be no guessing if if you’re Mark or Martha. How do preach against women wearing pants in a country or tribe where they all are naked or mostly naked?

Sure things change, culture changes, and everyone wore robes when that scripture was written. Who, when and where decided it was ok for a man to start wearing pants and leave the robe era? It boils down to some mans conviction that he kept pushing on others and their acceptance is how things and culture changes.

 

[Artfuldodger]

Our personal convictions are not meant to justify anything, and they’re not meant to place standards on others either. Key word there is personal.

As far as pants, I always ask them to go find that in the Bible. Again, nature will teach us how we should dress. Whatever we wear should not attract attention to ourselves and there should be no guessing if if you’re Mark or Martha. How do preach against women wearing pants in a country or tribe where they all are naked or mostly naked?

Sure things change, culture changes, and everyone wore robes when that scripture was written. Who, when and where decided it was ok for a man to start wearing pants and leave the robe era? It boils down to some mans conviction that he kept pushing on others and their acceptance is how things and culture changes.

How much of that cultural change does God accept? If one has whatever it takes in his heart, does God allow for social change?

Loopholes in business for instance may just be a part of capitalism.
Cheating on one's income tax may be justified.
I guess if one can personally justify it like women wearing pants then it's a social change that's OK.
What about women wearing gold, pearls, or expensive clothes? Can we justify that with scripture?

Then let's move on to slow dancing with perfect strangers, girlfriends, or wives. The movies we watch. The TV we watch. Playing the Lottery. The music we listen to. Not much of that is even in scripture so we again can just use our personal justifications.

Moving on to what we and our wives do in the bedroom. Is all of it natural? Can we justify it? Would our great grandparents have accepted our lifestyles or would they consider us worldly?

What about women wearing yoga pants in public? I can assure you that would not have been accepted dress in the 50's. Back then you could not take your clothes off at the beach to go swimming in public, even if you had on a bathing suit underneath. It would have been immoral.

I guess the scripture on clothing has to do with whatever is prevalent at the time that distinguishes the sexes. Today that is probably harder to do than when we all did wear robes.
Maybe they had men's robes and women's robes. Maybe the men had short hair and the women had long hair.

If the culture of the day sets the standard of dress for men such as pants and dresses for women, then is that what scripture says we should wear? Then if and when society accepts the change to women wearing pants, then its OK as per scripture.
Now if society again changes and says it's OK for men to wear dresses?

It's like we are changing scripture as the times change. Women now wear gold, pearls, and expensive clothes. Paul's words haven't changed, just our personal justifications of his words.

If we can say that we can change what this scriptural meaning is, as culture changes, then can we use that justification for everything scriptural? We can make unnatural acts natural. Just by having them long enough society will evolve and consider them natural. Look at smoking. Pierced body parts. Tattoos. Heterosexuals in the bedroom.

Exactly how important are these moral Laws in a time of grace? Do they still apply? Can heterosexuals perform unnatural acts? Can women now wear gold and pearls and expensive clothes?
Why were these laws of distinction for women even given?

Why are we even having a discussion on these Laws in an age of grace? Did Jesus die for these sins? Maybe they are guidelines and not sins even.

Are most Protestants and Catholics too worldly? Perhaps the Pentecostals have it right and the rest have it wrong.

Maybe none of it is really all that important.

 

[Spotlite]

How much of that cultural change does God accept? If one has whatever it takes in his heart, does God allow for social change?

Loopholes in business for instance may just be a part of capitalism.
Cheating on one's income tax may be justified.
I guess if one can personally justify it like women wearing pants then it's a social change that's OK.
What about women wearing gold, pearls, or expensive clothes? Can we justify that with scripture?

Then let's move on to slow dancing with perfect strangers, girlfriends, or wives. The movies we watch. The TV we watch. Playing the Lottery. The music we listen to. Not much of that is even in scripture so we again can just use our personal justifications.

Moving on to what we and our wives do in the bedroom. Is all of it natural? Can we justify it? Would our great grandparents have accepted our lifestyles or would they consider us worldly?

What about women wearing yoga pants in public? I can assure you that would not have been accepted dress in the 50's. Back then you could not take your clothes off at the beach to go swimming in public, even if you had on a bathing suit underneath. It would have been immoral.

I guess the scripture on clothing has to do with whatever is prevalent at the time that distinguishes the sexes. Today that is probably harder to do than when we all did wear robes.
Maybe they had men's robes and women's robes. Maybe the men had short hair and the women had long hair.

If the culture of the day sets the standard of dress for men such as pants and dresses for women, then is that what scripture says we should wear? Then if and when society accepts the change to women wearing pants, then its OK as per scripture.
Now if society again changes and says it's OK for men to wear dresses?

It's like we are changing scripture as the times change. Women now wear gold, pearls, and expensive clothes. Paul's words haven't changed, just our personal justifications of his words.

If we can say that we can change what this scriptural meaning is, as culture changes, then can we use that justification for everything scriptural? We can make unnatural acts natural. Just by having them long enough society will evolve and consider them natural. Look at smoking. Pierced body parts. Tattoos. Heterosexuals in the bedroom.

Exactly how important are these moral Laws in a time of grace? Do they still apply? Can heterosexuals perform unnatural acts? Can women now wear gold and pearls and expensive clothes?
Why were these laws of distinction for women even given?

Why are we even having a discussion on these Laws in an age of grace? Did Jesus die for these sins? Maybe they are guidelines and not sins even.

Are most Protestants and Catholics too worldly? Perhaps the Pentecostals have it right and the rest have it wrong.

Maybe none of it is really all that important.

When is cultural change not acceptable? Since clothing is the main topic, what’s Gods purpose of clothing? To cover up once we knew we were naked. I think he could care less if we have fig leaves or long skirts.


I’m not really discussing those as being acceptable or not, used a couple of things to point out the fact that some things are given straight forward, and some things we must work out. That was my answer as to how I distinguish what is Gods law and how I interpret it.

But to your comment, can you really see the religious political dogma when determining what is expensive, proper length, slow dance? Smoking?? Same thing, all that’s said is pertaining to not harming the body. Folks use smoking but let’s look at overeating, too much fat in the diet, too many chemicals, etc.
Jewelry, is there a difference in a Mr T walking in and someone with a wedding band on? You’re not accepting or lowering standards just because you don’t go overboard.

Pentecostals are not the only ones teaching those standards. And I fully support any denomination that teaches it in context that as a member, you represent this church body and this is how we dress and act if you want to take any type roles in this church other than sitting on a pew.

 

[Artfuldodger]

The main thing I was pointing out concerning dress and the Bible is, it's the present culture that dictates the modesty Paul was teaching.
It's not like we should still dress as they did in biblical times. I would also agree that women can now wear pants.

The dress in the Church is a direct reflection of what society wears. It changes with the times. My Mom now wears pants. Women wear pants to Church. We have adopted Paul's scripture on dressing modestly to fit the present times. Why can't we do that with all scripture?

Concerning this question; "How do you distinguish between what is God's pure unadulterated law and how you understand it?"

And it's relation to Paul stating a statute that women should not wear gold, pearls, and expensive clothes. Can we use it as we do pants since this verse actually spells out gold, pearls, and expensive clothes?

Have the times changed that women can now wear gold, pearls, and expensive clothes? If they can then what other statues can we overlook with the changing times?
Can women now preach over men in a Church?

Even with those statues from Paul he also said;

"We are not justified by our adherence to the law, but we are justified by faith in Christ (Romans 3:21-28). The believer in Christ Jesus is "dead" to the constraints of the law. "But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code" (Romans 7:6)."

Somehow we got to figure out how much of Christ's blood and God's grace killed the constraints of the Law.

 

[Artfuldodger]

I must say that Spotlite is pretty good at the Apologetic aspect of Christianity.
He fits in well on this forum.

Would also add that any person being Atheist, Agnostic, or Apologetic, posting on this forum should expect and accept input from those three categories. Otherwise, why post here?
You don't have to agree with it but don't post here as an Apologetic and get upset when one of the other two respond.

This "Pants' thing is a learning thing. I've learned from Spotlite and hopefully he has picked up something as well. We aren't trying to convince the other but show different ways to look at it.

I wouldn't get bent out of shape if anyone wanted to add their views. I hope I'm never to old to learn something. It doesn't mean that I may agree but it will make me think.

Spotlite holds his own in a very good way of presenting the gospel without letting pride overcome. That's really harder to do than you think.

 

[Spotlite]

I must say that Spotlite is pretty good at the Apologetic aspect of Christianity.
He fits in well on this forum.

Would also add that any person being Atheist, Agnostic, or Apologetic, posting on this forum should expect and accept input from those three categories. Otherwise, why post here?
You don't have to agree with it but don't post here as an Apologetic and get upset when one of the other two respond.

This "Pants' thing is a learning thing. I've learned from Spotlite and hopefully he has picked up something as well. We aren't trying to convince the other but show different ways to look at it.

I wouldn't get bent out of shape if anyone wanted to add their views. I hope I'm never to old to learn something. It doesn't mean that I may agree but it will make me think.

Spotlite holds his own in a very good way of presenting the gospel without letting pride overcome. That's really harder to do than you think.

I always learn something from your post. I’d drown minnows with anyone on here.

 

[Israel]

Anyone who has watched almost any "Doctor show" on TV, movie, had anything more than the slightest and passing brush with the medical field or physicians has heard of the Hippocratic Oath. Though its totality is viewed as rather arcane today, and not, as some might think, a still universal requirement in the taking of it for entrance of medical practice, its first dictum "Primum non nocere" remains well known. "First do no harm."

Primary things are primary with reason. "First things first" is so common in our ear as to become background noise. When it comes to us as instruction, or may be said to us, we know very well the implication; "something/someone has recognized a (or my) proclivity to move ahead, while also recognizing I have not yet learned the first thing."
We are put "in our place" when told "first things first". Something is set to a restraining of us, we may find ourselves inhibited...even reminded it is to stay "at the first thing" until it is allowed to move in what it may consider ahead.

And so an order is forced to us, an authority revealed in that order that has both power to restrain, and even if restraint to our mind even be cast aside...remind us of need to return to either first thing or whatever last form order had taken in which we are no longer hearing "you are out of order".

And any man who may say "I have learned by my mistakes" automatically inserts himself into this undeniable knowing. Cleverness then, has no resource here to exempt a man, confessing thus, unless he think he may stand upon the general confession by now lying "But, I have never made a mistake". But, man is free to some extent in that he can speak almost anything in regard to himself. And of course, such a man will show whether he can indeed, stand there.

Learning, in whatever form, shape, discipline, endeavor has to itself its definition, a going from less knowing to more knowing. And it is only the more knowing estate, relative to the once "less knowing"...that reveals what has been done there, indeed "who" was there...in that less knowing (yet practicing all his knowing). It can see and perceive of the less knowing, but just as less knowing necessitated the birth of "more knowing" that itself is then seen...even the "more knowing" must then concede, its present estate is totally unknown to it...except by the even more knowing. So, what man knows himself much at all...unless he believe he is all knowing?

Can a man then, indeed know anything of himself (at any particular moment)...if holding likewise he is growing in knowing? I know all too well here I am prohibited, presently, in this very moment, from intercourse with any and all men that either do not know yet, or refusing in cleverness that some moment has come to them in which they learned all the previous moments were seen wrongly. This can be general...or even in regard to some specific matter, even very particular to their own selves. But, I could be wrong. There may be a communication taking place "elsewhere", an intercourse I do not yet perceive, on a level in which my lofty proclamation of "prohibition' and recognition of it...is all laughable. Is this...that next moment? How wrong am I allowed to "have been"?

(Shall I return to "first things first?" Do no harm with my presumption of loftiness...it will only encourage others to a similar form, or make it hard to maintain a dignified humility. Someone could be forced to chasten you, which for them is an unnecessary suffering...but quite necessary...for you.)

Time. It's a trip. It, like life, kills a lot of people. Some are very concerned, if their words be true, with One who stepped into it, for just that purpose. But some, whose words are no less equally up for "if they be true" say otherwise for anything stepping into time...by intent. It's OK. It has to be. What the next moment may show any...or all, of rightness, of wrongness, of knowing and not knowing, of presuming...is all open to surprise.

"When it pleased God to reveal His Son in me..." should not appear out of place in that regard, or should it? I may be wrong.

My rarely liking shock, but always preferring surprises...I have come to realize...has no effect upon how what is, "is". (Read "who", please, I am always awkward talking about Him...right in front of Him) Shock and awe is weaving a place in some otherwise useless fabric...to an end.

What man may know, not know of God, be allowed to say as to His being, and likewise allowed to say as to his "not being"...surely ain't in my purview. About all I am feeling safe to say is about a man who was led here. A man who for many many previous moments held a hope to calling down fire. He had obviously not learned "first things first". An "a priori" not safe for him to ignore.

Is something (if, and when it is) recognized as infinitely small, of any consequence?

Right now, and by that stating, a point in time is fixed. Does any man not know what time "now" is? Does any man not know he is on some continuum of "nows"...but at the same time now, even now, know there is an appointed end to his "nows"? He appears as a dot on an infinite line...even were his dot, his point of time...be made to be a billion years, 10 Billion...what is it...ultimately upon that line? Infinitely...small. An infinitely small (how small is that?) amount of time in which he states "I am". Could anything then be of less consequence...than something infinitely small? Yet to himself he appears...in time...and by, and in, all his occupation there states "I am".

Of course you shouldn't take me seriously! Of any consequence, at all. I am very much as if I am not, at all. Infinitely...small.

But then, who "in time" do you consider of consequence? I will try not to laugh if you say "yourself".

First, do no harm. I must be restrained. In time.