Submission? Or Power and Control?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

ILG isn't new. She knows this has been debated before. This thread wasn't a debate. She wasn't posting a question or request. It was a post she copied from her anti-UPC FB page. Most of her recent posts have been the same, posts against authors and ministers from the UPC.

This should be posted to the Debate Room, since it is a post about the doctrines of an organization.

Also, this is copied in full from a private FB group. AFF rules state: "Posting content from private forums in not allowed, unless all specifics are removed and a general topic is being discussed."

Okay, I agree with taking it to the Debate Room and following the rules of this forum.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

But what if you are wrong? I know, I know, you can flip it around and ask me the same thing. But, what if YOU are wrong?

I considered this to the very depths at one time. And I became convinced that I was wrong when I believed that uncut hair was an extremely important issue, maybe even salvational and so I changed, even though it cost me a lot.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I agree. When the majority of Oneness Apostolics hold to standards that they believe are biblical, what honorable intent can there be in bombarding a forum with the purpose of trying to discredit those standards? to see people leave the UPC and other Oneness orgs? and go where? be set adrift to backslide?

Even if you think the standards are based on misinterpretation of scripture, all you have is women who are dressing modestly and looking like women.

I wish all we had were women dressing modestly and looking like women. For those of you who are doing just that, that is fine with me. But there is a mind prison that goes along with this for some people. It did for me. It does for others. I know because I have talked to many who had the exact same experiences and problems I did with it. And it took me many years to break out of it. It was hard and difficult to do so but I am so much freer and better off now.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by houston

Do you greet your brethren with a holy kiss? Why not?

Smoochie Smoochie!

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

And there we have it: The culture view, the uncut hair view and the veil covering view.

15 pages later, which could have been accomplished on page one.

Now we don't have to argue about this with ILG anymore. Done. Seems easier just to put out the information instead of taking several pages of insults to get there.

Thanks, guys!

Indeed! The reason I left this forum for the most part, even though I made many friends here is because every time I opened my mouth in discussion, because some disagreed, I was insulted, attacked, accused, what-have-you. That is not Christian behavior. People who are secure in their position have no need to insult others as they only want to lead others in the right way. This ia also the reason I only come here occasionally-because I only want to put up with so much abuse....and I do it only for those who were suffering like I was and looking for answers to many questions.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by n david

ILG isn't new. She knows this has been debated before. This thread wasn't a debate. She wasn't posting a question or request. It was a post she copied from her anti-UPC FB page. Most of her recent posts have been the same, posts against authors and ministers from the UPC.

This should be posted to the Debate Room, since it is a post about the doctrines of an organization.

Also, this is copied in full from a private FB group. AFF rules state: "Posting content from private forums in not allowed, unless all specifics are removed and a general topic is being discussed."

So nothing can be cut and pasted to this forum? I doubt if anybody goes along with that one. I wrote the post after all. I could write it all over key-stroke by key-stroke instead of cutting and pasting but that seems silly.

Also, I posted to the debate room before and it doesn't seem like anyone reads over there.

[Captain]

Lurking here and trying to take in all the relevant things being said here.

The initial post was a statement about teaching that long, uncut hair was really about enticing women to seek out power and control and this was bad but the op doesn’t really say why it’s bad. We’re left to interpret her implications and this has basically turned into a rambling pseudo-debate about whether or not the Bible actually says a woman’s hair should be uncut.

So let’s just break this down into the coherent parts:

• 1Cor11:15 clearly states that “her hair is given to her for a covering.” So no, the wearing of a veil is not biblical. The woman’s hair is her covering. The Bible is clear enough on this as to be beyond further discussion. Reading “her hair is given to her for a covering” and arguing for a veil nonetheless is a “private interpretation.”

• Reading 1Cor chapter 11 in full context clearly lays out that God has a hierarchy of authority; Christ, man, woman. Short version – the woman’s long, feminine hair is a sign of her submission to her husband and thus to God.

• The teaching of uncut hair is unclear in the scripture but it is very clear that it is a matter of a woman remaining feminine i.e. long hair and a man masculine i.e. short hair. Paul says that this is so natural that it is self-evident.

• So a feminine man or a masculine woman is out of God’s natural order just as a woman who is not submitted to her husband or a man who does not rightly exercise his natural authority in the home is out of God’s natural order.

• The idea of a doctrine requiring at least 2 or 3 verses comes from theology and is not biblical. It may be a good rule of thumb but there is nothing rigidly biblical about it. Another theological practice that is more true in practice is that of First Principles. Look it up, not important enough to get deeply into here but essentially something that is stated plainly enough to be self-evident can be a 1st principle i.e. Acts 2:38

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Captain

• 1Cor11:15 clearly states that “her hair is given to her for a covering.” So no, the wearing of a veil is not biblical. The woman’s hair is her covering. The Bible is clear enough on this as to be beyond further discussion. Reading “her hair is given to her for a covering” and arguing for a veil nonetheless is a “private interpretation.”

Wrong.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, with hair on his head, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth without hair on her head dshonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman have not hair on her head, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have hair on her head.

So then, hair is NOT the covering being commanded.

If you prefer the covering be "long hair", it becomes even more plain to see:

4 Every man praying or prophesying, with long hair, dishonoureth his head.

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with short hair dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman have short hair, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have long hair.

It is ridiculous to teach that if a woman have short, cut hair, she should ALSO cut her hair short, that if she have short, cut hair it is AS IF her head was shaven.

The statement "her hair is given her for a covering" is the lesson FROM NATURE that corroborates the apostle's command. Otherwise the passage becomes nonsensical.

Your claim ignores not only the plain meaning of the text, but also 1800 years of history. Practically ALL Christians everywhere at every time understood Paul taught that a woman should wear a head covering and a man should not, when praying or prophesying. Only in the last 100 years or so, in the west, did the Christian woman's head covering get abandoned by modernists who had no use for "old, archaic practices that oppress women."

[Captain]

You're simply wrong.

1 Cor 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Her hair is given her for a covering.

If you can read that and still deny the plainness of what it says then you can turn any scripture into whatever you want.

[Captain]

I should add that 1800 years of church history has also produced quite a bit of false doctrine.

And teaching a veil is simply a manmade loophole so women can cut their hair as short as they please.