Non-essentials #1

[Kutless]

I rec'd a book from a friend of mine the other day. This book, all 189 pgs of it are on the topic of standards. At least the ones that matter to some.

Chapter 9 is entitled "Facial Hair on Men". Here is an excerpt:


Paul, who had gone head to head with the judaizers of Jerusalem over the subject of circumcision, now takes Timothy and circumcises him. This he does while teaching/demanding that circumcision after the Law of Moses is not necessary. Obviously Timothy did not subject himself to this ordeal to be saved.

Why would Timothy submit to an excruciating rite that no longer had any spiritual signifigance or merit? He did it not for Jesus sake but for the sake of the gospel.

It was not a case of right or wrong, truth or error, heaven or hell. It was a case of doing what was best in their time, place and society to reach souls for Jesus Christ.

The UPC has (in the main) for the last several decades, been opposed to beards and mustaches on men. Generally speaking, this stand has been taken in effort to not be identified with elements of then world that are less desirable: most notably the "beatniks" of the late forties and fifties, the "hippies" of the sixties and early seventies, and various carry-over elements that are alive and well".


I have never heard it from this angle before. What think ye?

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Kutless

I rec'd a book from a friend of mine the other day. This book, all 189 pgs of it are on the topic of standards. At least the ones that matter to some.

Chapter 9 is entitled "Facial Hair on Men". Here is an excerpt:


Paul, who had gone head to head with the judaizers of Jerusalem over the subject of circumcision, now takes Timothy and circumcises him. This he does while teaching/demanding that circumcision after the Law of Moses is not necessary. Obviously Timothy did not subject himself to this ordeal to be saved.

Why would Timothy submit to an excruciating rite that no longer had any spiritual signifigance or merit? He did it not for Jesus sake but for the sake of the gospel.

It was not a case of right or wrong, truth or error, heaven or hell. It was a case of doing what was best in their time, place and society to reach souls for Jesus Christ.

The UPC has (in the main) for the last several decades, been opposed to beards and mustaches on men. Generally speaking, this stand has been taken in effort to not be identified with elements of then world that are less desirable: most notably the "beatniks" of the late forties and fifties, the "hippies" of the sixties and early seventies, and various carry-over elements that are alive and well".


I have never heard it from this angle before. What think ye?

it is better than the one i saw not long ago.

it went something like this:

"we believe in Apostolic authority thus if a pastor sets a standard like no beards, then while it is not a sin to have a beard if the Pastor exerciszing Apostolic authority says "no beard" it becomes a sin for those under his ministry"

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Ferd

it is better than the one i saw not long ago.

it went something like this:

"we believe in Apostolic authority thus if a pastor sets a standard like no beards, then while it is not a sin to have a beard if the Pastor exerciszing Apostolic authority says "no beard" it becomes a sin for those under his ministry"

I was taught that concept. It applied to every standard that I didn't agree with. lol

Originally Posted by Kutless

I have never heard it from this angle before. What think ye?

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by Ronzo

Bro I'm having baloney for lunch today. I like it.

Originally Posted by Kutless

Bro I'm having baloney for lunch today. I like it.

I love baloney... but not when it comes to misconstruing the word of God to fit one's messed up ideas...

[Kutless]

Originally Posted by Ronzo

I love baloney... but not when it comes to misconstruing the word of God to fit one's messed up ideas...

show me a miscontruction here.

It clearly states where the principle originated (fair for that era). Then it shows an example of one doing something for the betterment of his surroundings in hopes of a more attentive audience to the gospel. Then also mentioning it wasn't necessarily heaven or hell???

Originally Posted by Kutless

show me a miscontruction here.

It clearly states where the principle originated (fair for that era). Then it shows an example of one doing something for the betterment of his surroundings in hopes of a more attentive audience to the gospel. Then also mentioning it wasn't necessarily heaven or hell???

Hey if you want to eat the baloney, feel free... It's a HUGE stretch any way you slice it.

I've had my fill, thanks.

[ILuvFPC]

This is 2007 not the 70's.. I think its an outdated tradition. No one sees a man with a goatee walking down the street and says "oh look, he must be a hippee, he has facial hair"..... A tradition which i follow gladly though, i have no problem being clean shaven... But I think it is alot more wrong for people to judge and look down on men with facial hair than to actually have facial hair...

[ChTatum]

It's their organization. They can establish whatever rules or guidelines they wish. If I want to be a part, I will submit.

Guess I don't! LOL!