Salyan

Moderators
  • Content count

    3,902
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About Salyan

  • Rank
    Super Contributor

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location:
    SP AB CA
  • Are you IFB?
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

14,865 profile views
  1. I kinda agree, but on the other hand, families are paying school taxes and have the right for that money to be used to educate their own kids. Otherwise, wouldn't it be a kind of 'taxation without representation' thing? And, to be honest, it's really not about the money. It's about forcing a deviant, minority view upon society as a whole. If the money issue was removed, they'd still be looking for a way to force all children into a pro-gay environment. "Give me the child" kind of thing, eh? This issue goes a lot deeper. The new NDP gov (socialist) is pushing all kinds of things in a really short time that completely undermine Christian & family values in Alberta.. This conflict arose out of the proposed Bill 10 - which isn't just about clubs. It's also about forcing transgender washrooms into all schools and requiring schools to support students identifying as LGBTQ without notifying their parents. The club bit is a section requiring schools to form a gay-straight alliance club in their school if only one student should request such a thing, and providing an adult to mentor the group. If such a leader is not provided, the government will choose an outside individual to enter the school and mentor the club. It's about more than just this one Christian school - it affects parental rights and religious rights across the entire public/separate (Catholic)/private school system. I'm not sure yet how it will influence homeschooling - I think the NDP would just like to abolish that altogether. The media is totally on the side of the NDP. We had a big rally at the Alberta Legislature some months ago against Bill 10 - focused more on parental rights as an overall issue. Tons of people came out - but, surprisingly enough (sarcasm alert), the media didn't really cover it. Although they did take a couple of pictures of the tiny LGBTQ contingent that was front and center and making a commotion. *roll eyes* I can't believe this has made it to Lighthouse Trails! Pastor Coldwell's stance is making waves a lot further away than I'd have thought. Pastor Coldwell was sent out from our church to plant New Testament Baptist some years ago [before my time]. They're one of the circle of churches we fellowship with.
  2. I agree that women shouldn't wear pants. What I disagree with is the idea that verses regarding a specific subset of the male population somehow become binding on everyone, and how cultural garments from a specific time and place have somehow become the definition of gendered garb for all times & cultures. I also find it hypocritical for men to disapprove of bivurcated garments externally (pants) and allow them if hidden (warm layers). I think there is a sufficient argument against pants from the modesty perspective without using outdated arguments from the 1970's. Like I said before, I would love there to be a chapter and verse against wearing pants, but the fact is it just isn't there. And you didn't answer my question. ;-)
  3. So Br. Stafford, what is your position on women wearing any kind of bivurcated garments (breeches)? Are all breeches prohibited, or just external ones? Just so you know, a good number of the articles in your list that are listed as both are actually gender-specific. Men's shirts & ladies' shirts button on opposite sides. Ladies' boots and men's boots are very different in design - all shoes tend to have very gender-specific designs, except for perhaps runners. Hats also tend to traditionally be more gender specific (although that's getting blended more). Coats have the same button specs as shirts, and robes (I'm assuming you're talking bathrobes) also have very different designs for men vs women. Even pants (I know, I know...) and t-shirts are actually designed differently for men and women. It's not quite as clear cut as you're presenting it. (BTW, do we really need to bring underwear into it? That's a bit crude...) I'm not against people being against pants, but I think one ought to be consistent and have reasonable arguments for it. It helps no one to bring outdated, culturacentric eisegesis to the table.
  4. I was going to comment that Judges 3:24 and 1 Samuel 24:3 were talking about resting or sleeping - and now I see that the modern versions think it's talking about using the bathroom. Which is pretty weird, cause you'd think Saul would have noticed David sneaking up on him if he was doing that! I don't get where the modern versions translate it that way - but we don't believe in them anyways. I still think those verses refer to resting.
  5. Is it Friday yet? :-P
  6. Salyan, Dave tried to send this to you but said he couldn't. He asked me to send it to you if I could.

    ________________________________

    Apologies - I did not mean to cause trouble by it. It was a genuine post that I feel was worth the discussion.

    I do not agree with your decision but I do respect your decision.

    I will not pursue it further, but maybe the mods could discuss such a proposal.

    Thanks,

    Dave.

    Ps. delete it if you wish so that there is no possibility of it causing the trouble you are cautious of.

  7. Ookay... and after that word from our new Calvinist troll, we are getting back on topic. O.o
  8. Fair enough. That particular area of confusion doesn't bother me very much, but I can understand why it bothers you. I just don't like to see good articles written off because one minor reference was incorrect. The linked article really isn't about the church, 'universal' or local, at all, and the warning it includes is important for all believers, IFB or evangelical alike.
  9. Just curious... how does one avoid introducing them to predators? Do they carry identification cards? I'm not trying to be snarky - just wanted to point out (to the internet public at large) that we don't know who a predator is - and they usually look like the nice, friendly guy sitting down the pew from us. Actually, statistically, they usually look like family members. I'm curious, now... have any of y'all had experiences with predators in your churches? Or suspected ones?
  10. There are plenty true followers of Christ that are off on doctrine, and I don't think a proper understanding of the church is necessary to salvation. You know? ;-) I really value Lighthouse Trails. They do a lot of research into an area that is general ignored - the emerging church and contemplative prayer movement - a danger that is taking the evangelical churches by storm. Which, IMO, means it's probably already beginning to seep into our churches. It is so important to know about this stuff! David Cloud even references their articles from time to time (he doesn't give source credit, but you can tell!). They also stock some very useful literature on how to recognize child abuse and abusers that I've found quite helpful.
  11. Um, no, swath. There's an awful lot of kids that are raised on tv and go to public school who are perfectly well adjusted and know how to behave appropriately.
  12. Matthew 5:31-32 is my best reasoning against remarriage after divorce, too. In this messed up world of no-fault divorce, I really wish I could be in favor of remarriage - it doesn't seem fair to those divorced against their will. But that verse just seems to nix that.
  13. No - Sal'-yin
  14. Hmm... that's weird... that's not what I see. Polls, Create New Topic, and then your screen, only under 'Topic Details' there are two tabs with 'content' and 'poll'. Maybe it shows differently cause I'm a mod though. Maybe someone who's not a mod can take a look?
  15. You're welcome, but.. ahem... that's 'sister'. ;-)