This Vision of Loveliness was on line ahead of me today at Costco. Scope those monkeyface PJs.
Posted on 10/18/2005 8:33:29 AM PDT by Millee
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
Sunday, the Lord's Day is to be set aside and sanctified. We are to refrain from seeking our own pleasures and pursuits and seek His (Ex 20v8-11, Is 58v13-14, Neh 13, and Mt 12). To most this is Sunday, the first day of the week (Act 20v7, Rev 1v10).
I certainly hope you're not suggesting the 4th Commandment is null and void. Or, much like public dress, it would seem you seek to blur those lines as well.
"I wear pants in the winter for the same reason. I froze my knees enough when I was a kid and dress codes required dresses for school."
Boy, did this bring back memories! I grew up the 50's when girls had to wear dresses to school. I remember the dreaded snowsuit that took a half hour to get into and out of!! And those rubber boots!! Your shoes always came off when you tried to take them off!! I also remember wearing pants under my dress to keep warm (and having to take them off when I got to school). I was glad when tights were invented!
The term "the Lord's day" is used only once in the Scriptures (Rev. 1:10) "I was in the spirit on the Lord's Day" clearly is referring to the Sabbath as it is the only day throughout all of scripture called such. (Gen. 2: 3; Ex 20: 10,11; Isa 58: 13; Isa 56: 4; Mark 2: 28) John the Revelator was a Jew and as such, I am positive he would be able to distinguish the sabbath from any other day.
I will ask you is Sunday itself holy? Is one day more spiritual and another more secular? Since we, not days, are holy, how can our sanctity be violated? That is accomplished by our sin which is a breach of our dedication, sanctification, separateness and holiness. Sin is not related to any "day" or time. When we sin, we violate our own holiness not thaat of a day.
DO NOT conclude that I am disparaging the need for assembling with brethren or communion on Sunday or any day. We all need the support that we gain from sharing with those of the faith. I am saying that these meetings are no more effective on one day than another.
If the Lord's day is a specific day, then we would have to say it is the sabbath because of Jesus' own claim, for he himself declared, "For the Son of man is lord of the sabbath" (Matt. 12:8).
Paul permits the weak brother to respect days but not to bind his scruple on others or condemn others who do not hold his conviction. He writes, "One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike. Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. None of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's" (Rom. 14:5). God's word does not permit either side of the daykeeping controversy to pass judgment on the other. It is the whole person, not certain days or hours, who is sanctified. Every day is raised to the highest level making us no closer to God or more priestly at one time than another.
Man's limitation of the communion to Sunday only is without command, precedent, or inference. There is no clear example of the disciples' communing through partaking of the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week. At Troas they met to break bread, but there is no proof that it was the Lord's Supper instead of a common meal. It was after midnight before the bread was broken. That was Monday morning. Paul intended to depart on "the morrow after the first day". Besides, Jesus initiated the communion on a weekday evening in an indisputable example.
In Acts 20:7 & 8, the text simply says "Upon the first day of the week, the disciples came to break bread...Paul preached...". There is nothing here to declare the first day of the week sacred. Nothing. Throughout the book of Acts you will find Paul observing the Sabbath. He did not preach a new sabbath but rather a new fullness of the Holy Ghost. The premise is too weak to imply a lawfully bound conclusion as many have inferred from that text.
Also, when feet get lots of ventilation on a regular basis they don't have as much opportunity to incubate the bacteria that cause foot odor.
From my own experience is where I was coming from only.
I did not say anything about your parenting. I was saying that although at the time my parents' discipline seemed unfair, it helped me become a success in life, physically, spiritually, emotionally.
If your children maybe protecting us someday in the military, as you referred to in your post, discipline in their teen years would be helpful.
I also said kids are kids. The PJs in school would be inappropriate in my opinion.
I observe the day for the sake of worship, I don't worship for the sake of the day. The former is honoring the Sabbath, the latter is legalism, and was the point Paul was making in the Romans passage you posted. That the ceremonial aspects, the dietary restrictions, days of fasting, etc. are no longer relevant does not mean that the Lord's Day is negated.
Again, my points from the article - you may continue to object to them, which will cause me to either repeat myself, or eventually ignore you. Since you didn't object to my previous rebuttal on what constitutes pajamas, play clothes, and dress clothes (which I can't even believe I'm having to define to another adult) I'll assume you're ok with the definitions:
Point 1) There used to exist a general sense of decency and decorum - especially on the Lord's day, but generally in public. This overall standard has been watered down over the last several decades, but seems to be increasing. An overall lack of formality and lack of discernment as to what is proper and what isn't.
Point 2) People who refuse to go to church unless they can dress casually - the issue is with them, and not with the church. The issue is their personal comfort taking precedence over service to the Lord. It makes their faithful worship to Him conditional, and that's just wrong.
I simply do not believe that to be true in every case. I am a casual dresser when it comes to church meaning I wear slacks most of the time. I do not do this because I place my own comfort over revering and worshipping God. It's what I have. Frankly, I own very few dresses or skirts and I do not intend on buying any. If I am ever turned away from my or any house of worship for wearing slacks, I will no longer attend that particular church.
A house of worship is not a fashion runway and I will not allow my spiritual walk to be hindered by such pettiness.
I left such a legalistic body years ago. This particular church is one of the most affluent churches in our town. All of the ladies at this particular church were well dressed. They wore designer labels, fancy jewelry and drove the finest of cars. So much that it became a competition. The jealousy, backbiting, strife and overall condemnation of others was pathetic. Their clothing was a mask of their spiritual inadequacy. The treasurer, one the best dressed ladies you will ever see, was buying personal items with church funds and sleeping with the pastor who was married. The pastor's wife was addicted to Xanax, as were several other ladies, and was a walking zombie most of the time. You would have never known this by looking at them. Affairs, stealing, lying, gossip...you name it it was going on. On the outside these looked like a bunch of "holy" people. On the inside they were a mess. This particular church is now in such disarray you'd be hard pressed to recognize it as a house of God.
My reason for going to church is to fellowship with my brethren. To be fed spiritually and, as a result of that feeding, to grow spiritually. It is not to make a fashion statement or to convince anyone of my worthiness by wearing the right clothing according to their standards.
My reason for hoping the low-rider fad passes soon is just the opposite: girls are making themselves so skinny, that the cut of the pants removes any "roundness" to their bottoms. From behind they look like nine-year-old Hindu boys.
>>I am a casual dresser when it comes to church meaning I wear slacks most of the time. I do not do this because I place my own comfort over revering and worshipping God. It's what I have. <<
Thank you, thank you, thank you! My point has finally gotten through!!
"Unless" is the operative word, and the crux of my whole point here. Conditional worship - "If I can't wear shorts, I ain't goin'".
This Vision of Loveliness was on line ahead of me today at Costco. Scope those monkeyface PJs.
So it was YOU taking my picture!!!! Shame on you Martin, shame! ;-)
OMG live action photos taken by marteen!
I came *this close* to sending it to you directly.
i would have died laughing! marteen, photog at large, documenting the decline of our culture via PHONE!
wait, seriously? you just ruined the fun for your daughter like that because you thought it was DUMB? I’m 15 and everytime my elementary/middle school had pajama day, my parents agreed even though they thought it was retarded. I may be wrong but i’m guessing your kid’s curfew was 9:00 at night during the summer? just wondering because mine was 11. Pajama day is a very important part of going through elementary/middle school (jk but its funnnnn) and your poor dauhter missed out on it.. disappointing... and i just might wear my PJ’s to work and to classes in college thank you very much!
What a ridiculous generalization. Staff and students need to stay home if they are can’t even bother to show up dressed. Slippers get dirty and nasty on school floors and what if it rains? STUPID!get up and get dressed - or go for a GED
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.