• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

The OOM Creed

What in the world do I need a "creed" for when I have a BIBLE that addresses EVERTHING in your "creed"??

A creed makes me think of the Amish and Mennonites and how they are in bondage to their church doctrine/creed and I am talking negatively not positively. The Holy Scriptures are clear...
Mark 16:15 KJV And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
But according to their doctrine/creed they're are not to share their faith with the outside world and yes I have heard this straight from the horses mouth, if you will. I have had some tell me that they are not suppose to share their faith with me and I tell them what the Scriptures teach and they agree with what I have told them, I have even had one go as far as to tell me he disagrees with the churches stance and yet he just can't give it up.

So I will stick with the creed of the 66 books of the Holy Scriptures, oh and I read the extra curricular books, the Apocrypha, Enoch, Jasher, Jubilees, so on and so forth.

The Scriptures are clear...
2 Timothy 2:15 KJV Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
There is no creed mentioned in here to study.

Acts 17:11 KJV These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
You see they search the Scriptures not the creeds.

May YaHWeH lead guide and direct us to all Truth, through HIS WORD.
 
MeganC said:
How do you deal with things like jackets and sweatshirts that pretty much anyone can wear? Can a woman wear jeans when she's riding a horse? Do cowboy boots count as high heels? Can women drive trucks? Can a man drive a Prius?

Things to ponder.
Click to expand...
The unisex stuff is working GREAT today, boys and girls are confused and it is getting more difficult to tell them apart.

For the record a woman can ride a horse, bike and motorcycle in a dress/skirt and be VERY modest. She does NOT have to resort to wearing men's clothing.

Can a woman ride a stud horse or just a female horse? How one answers that question, just might have their answer to the "truck & prius" question.

Me personally, with the gas prices, I have considered a prius as a daily.
 
Edward said:
The unisex stuff is working GREAT today, boys and girls are confused and it is getting more difficult to tell them apart.

For the record a woman can ride a horse, bike and motorcycle in a dress/skirt and be VERY modest. She does NOT have to resort to wearing men's clothing.

Can a woman ride a stud horse or just a female horse? How one answers that question, just might have their answer to the "truck & prius" question.

Me personally, with the gas prices, I have considered a prius as a daily.
Click to expand...
As a big fan of skirts and dresses myself, I still find it too difficult to do a lot of things in them. Particularly the longer ones which I prefer, I literally trip over them. I couldn't imagine riding a horse or motorcycle in a long dress/skirt lol. What about just wearing women's pants?
 
Last edited:
LovesDogs said:
As a big fan of skirts and dresses myself, I still find it too difficult to do a lot of things in them, particularly the longer ones which I prefer, I literally trip over them when trying to do some stuff. I couldn't imagine riding a horse or motorcycle in them lol. What about just wearing women's pants?
Click to expand...
frederick said:
Women's pants aren't men's clothing. Women ought to wear protective clothing when e.g. riding a motorbike; a dress is NOT suitable protection.
Click to expand...
I agree. There’s certain activities where it can be a hazard; and there are ways to still be feminine.
 
frederick said:
Women's pants aren't men's clothing. Women ought to wear protective clothing when e.g. riding a motorbike; a dress is NOT suitable protection.
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is as long as I make a dress out of denim material and call it masculine I can wear it. After all it's men's dresses and therefore isn't women's clothing. Because that's all women pants are.

There are a lot of things that are not "suitable protection" for riding a motorcycle and yet men and women all over the world wear/not wear them.

Edit: something tells me we might just have to agree to disagree.
 
Edward said:
So what you're saying is as long as I make a dress out of denim material and call it masculine I can wear it. After all it's men's dresses and therefore isn't women's clothing. Because that's all women pants are.

There are a lot of things that are not "suitable protection" for riding a motorcycle and yet men and women all over the world wear/not wear them.

Edit: something tells me we might just have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
So like a kilt?
 
frederick said:
Have you heard Tim Hawkins sing his Yoga Pants song?
Here's the link just in case you haven't.
Click to expand...
I just had to listen to it and now I can't unsee it, I'm a very Vivid individual you can tell me a story over the phone and I can see it happening right before my eyes.

I pray I don't dream about Tim Hawkins in his yoga pants.
 
Edward said:
I have a BIBLE that addresses EVERTHING in your "creed"
Click to expand...
Indeed, which is why I made the creed - simplistically put, a creed is the same as saying "the Bible addresses these things".
Throughout Scripture there are examples of God's servants writing up statements of doctrine and covenants, all to declare their adherence to the law of God. For example, when many were taking heathen wives, those who repented wrote a covenant that they would not commit this evil specifically defined and rejected. Likewise others have biblically written creeds and statements of faith declaring their adherence to Scripture and rejecting specifically the evils of their day. Also people have of course written and committed to heretical creeds (such as the Amish), which is no surprise.

The OOM creed is between general and specific: specifically rejecting the evils of a certain age, but the evils of an age that really started before Christ, in Greece and Rome, and still continues to this day - so not extremely specific, haha.

Edward said:
So what you're saying is as long as I make a dress out of denim material and call it masculine I can wear it. After all it's men's dresses and therefore isn't women's clothing.
Click to expand...
Yes - in that a man's garment, made for a man to wear, is of course a man's garment. No - in that such a garment would be a robe (or kilt, etc.), not a dress. "Pants" are a different term, like "shirt": not having a specific word for a shirt or pants made for a woman. Similarly in some languages there is no separate word for a dress: like "shirt" it is called a robe whether for a man or woman.

The idea of differing basic designs is a relatively recent and local thing (as far as the whole world and history are concerned). Both men and women wore robes and in many places both still wear robes, ever since God dressed both the first man and first woman in robes. And in the end it is the same situation when everyone wears long coats because of cold or rain.

James Pease said:
I think it would be good for everyone to re read the passage in Deuteronomy and look closer. A man cant wear womens clothing and a woman cant put on that which pertains to a man. Different wordings for a reason.
Click to expand...
This would be saying the same thing in two different ways for emphasis, as is often done throughout Scripture; for example:
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s." Ex 20
We must remember there isn't any "erring on the safe side" in morality - that is to say, it is just as dangerous to suggest that this command goes beyond a woman taking a man's clothes and putting them on, as it is dangerous to suggest that the command doesn't forbid taking a man's clothes and putting them on. We can be sure of what the command refers to, as we can be sure that "thou shalt not kill" does not refer to killing plants, without it having to specify this (and though it is different wording from "thou shalt do no murder", or some other expression).

frederick said:
Have you heard Tim Hawkins sing his Yoga Pants song?
Click to expand...
If he's making a joke about putting on his wife's clothes, this is exactly what God is referring to in his command, that "all that do so are an abomination in the sight of Yahweh thy God". Making a joke of this sin is common in this culture back to its roots in pagan Rome. Transvestism isn't simply weird or awkward, any more than having sexual intercourse with an animal is simply weird or merely a joke. Similar is the "I am my own Grandpa" song, making a joke about incest.
 
Patrick Lauser said:
Indeed, which is why I made the creed - simplistically put, a creed is the same as saying "the Bible addresses these things".
Throughout Scripture there are examples of God's servants writing up statements of doctrine and covenants, all to declare their adherence to the law of God. For example, when many were taking heathen wives, those who repented wrote a covenant that they would not commit this evil specifically defined and rejected. Likewise others have biblically written creeds and statements of faith declaring their adherence to Scripture and rejecting specifically the evils of their day. Also people have of course written and committed to heretical creeds (such as the Amish), which is no surprise.

The OOM creed is between general and specific: specifically rejecting the evils of a certain age, but the evils of an age that really started before Christ, in Greece and Rome, and still continues to this day - so not extremely specific, haha.


Yes - in that a man's garment, made for a man to wear, is of course a man's garment. No - in that such a garment would be a robe (or kilt, etc.), not a dress. "Pants" are a different term, like "shirt": not having a specific word for a shirt or pants made for a woman. Similarly in some languages there is no separate word for a dress: like "shirt" it is called a robe whether for a man or woman.

The idea of differing basic designs is a relatively recent and local thing (as far as the whole world and history are concerned). Both men and women wore robes and in many places both still wear robes, ever since God dressed both the first man and first woman in robes. And in the end it is the same situation when everyone wears long coats because of cold or rain.


This would be saying the same thing in two different ways for emphasis, as is often done throughout Scripture; for example:
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s." Ex 20
We must remember there isn't any "erring on the safe side" in morality - that is to say, it is just as dangerous to suggest that this command goes beyond a woman taking a man's clothes and putting them on, as it is dangerous to suggest that the command doesn't forbid taking a man's clothes and putting them on. We can be sure of what the command refers to, as we can be sure that "thou shalt not kill" does not refer to killing plants, without it having to specify this (and though it is different wording from "thou shalt do no murder", or some other expression).


If he's making a joke about putting on his wife's clothes, this is exactly what God is referring to in his command, that "all that do so are an abomination in the sight of Yahweh thy God". Making a joke of this sin is common in this culture back to its roots in pagan Rome. Transvestism isn't simply weird or awkward, any more than having sexual intercourse with an animal is simply weird or merely a joke. Similar is the "I am my own Grandpa" song, making a joke about incest.
Click to expand...
I actually enjoyed this thread, I may not fully understand the need for a creed but it was an interesting read.
 
LovesDogs said:
I actually enjoyed this thread, I may not fully understand the need for a creed but it was an interesting read.
Click to expand...
I guess a brief and practical way to put it would be that the creed is so someone can refer to a specific set of doctrines by the single term "OOMmensch". That's the main reason the creed is so short: it's basically just a list.
 
Update:
Since the statement originally came from making a statement of faith for the OOM Foundation, I had used the same terms for it and for the OOM Foundation; but eventually I saw that they should be separate, with separate terms. So for a few months the statement had no name, but some days ago I settled on a name.

The word "Sarkos" will be for someone who holds the doctrines of the statement.
The word is taken from Ephesians 5:
"for we are members of his body, of his flesh {sarkos}, and of his bones."

I had thought of using "Basar", the Hebrew word for flesh, but "Sarkos" comes from the specific verse, and also I chose the Greek in dissociation with those who disagree with Yahweh about his use of Greek. "Sarkoi" is the plural, incidentally.

So now the statement begins thus:

“Sarkos” is a word, defined as any person that believes the following.
Click to expand...

And the statement can be referred to as "the definition of 'Sarkos'".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top