Stonekings Covering - Page 2

pelathais · #11 08-27-2009, 11:57 PM

In many cultures, particularly Semitic ones, there is a tradition that the wearing of headgear is a sign of humility. By not "showing yourself" you are assuming a humble posture. With your head covered and bowed (in prayer or submission) you are gesturing that you pose no threat to those around you. It is considered a sign of humility.

I suppose that it's because we humans have so many apparently contradicting customs for how we show submission that we usually assume a "shoot first, ask questions later" policy.

Irreligious · #12 08-28-2009, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

In the Middle Ages and even back into antiquity a man would remove his head gear as a sign of respect and homage. It was a way of making oneself a bit more vulnerable and saying, "I'm not here to threaten you..." My bank has a sign that asks people to remove motorcycle helmets and related head gear. It's a way of "showing yourself." By "showing yourself" you lower the level of tension and alarm that your arrival may have caused.

The hand wave gesture is similar. It was a way of showing that a person had nothing in their hand, in particular a weapon.

To even be allowed to approach the Western Wall men have to wear a head covering. There are boxes with kippot available on site for use.

Here's the rules: http://www.sacred-destinations.com/i...stern-wall.htm

You could just push your way through and demand your rights to pray with an uncovered head, but I pretty much guarantee a small riot will ensure. You will be arrested, and by the time the police or soldiers get there you will probably be glad to see them.

See what I mean, you know everything, for crying out loud. I don't even know why I bother to post when you're online. And by the way, what happened to that cool self-portrait (or I assume it was) that was up yesterday?

pelathais · #13 08-28-2009, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irreligious

See what I mean, you know everything, for crying out loud. I don't even know why I bother to post when you're online. And by the way, what happened to that cool self-portrait (or I assume it was) that was up yesterday?

I'm just bashful. I only put up a real pic of myself because Hoovie made me. I took it down as soon as he turned away to take a bite out of his taco. Somehow a fidgety Muppet seems to suit me too.

And I don't "know everything." I am amazed by everything however, so at some point or another most things will have caught my attention. I then start carrying on as if anyone's interested in my ravings. There's probably a cure for this but I don't mind, really.

MissBrattified · #14 08-28-2009, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by missourimary

You'll love this, but I believe if he is at the temple wall in Jerusalem in these pics, the Jewish laws of that place require certain clothing in adherance to Jewish traditions. One of those traditions is the wearing of a skull cap. I can't look it up right now, but will do a search tomorrow if no one can confirm.
On the other hand, he preaches about hair, not hats-men and women. So by my understanding of his view of scripture: since his hair is cut, with or without the cap he is uncovered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeekingOne

Why does this logic not surprise me now that I have been on this forum for a while?

(Now I brace myself for the "If his hair is cut, but down to his waist...." stuff. But that is what this logic does, it starts all kinds of more illogical thinking because it just doesn't make sense to make the covering hair - in my opinion of course. LOL)

I think the point is that since LS believes the covering refers to uncut or short hair (depending on the gender in question), wearing a cap would not be inconsistent with his own teachings, OR his interpretation of scripture. It makes the "hypocrisy" accusation null and void in this instance.

Unless someone teaches that men should remove their hats during prayer, and women should wear hats or veils during prayer, (which LS does not teach), then they should take no issue with women going without veils or men keeping their hats on.

Now, I think LS is way off on his hair teachings, generally speaking, but the comments about his Jewish hat are just silly, because it doesn't contradict a single thing the man believes or teaches.

pelathais · #15 08-28-2009, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I think the point is that since LS believes the covering refers to uncut or short hair (depending on the gender in question), wearing a cap would not be inconsistent with his own teachings, OR his interpretation of scripture. It makes the "hypocrisy" accusation null and void in this instance.

Unless someone teaches that men should remove their hats during prayer, and women should wear hats or veils during prayer, (which LS does not teach), then they should take no issue with women going without veils or men keeping their hats on.

Now, I think LS is way off on his hair teachings, generally speaking, but the comments about his Jewish hat are just silly, because it doesn't contradict a single thing the man believes or teaches.

But the hats pictured don't really go with the rest of his outfit either. I think it's just plain silly of you to defend someone who isn't even trying to be sartorially correct.

MissBrattified · #16 08-28-2009, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pelathais

But the hats pictured don't really go with the rest of his outfit either. I think it's just plain silly of you to defend someone who isn't even trying to be sartorially correct.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I now have to go look up "sartorially."

It Pays To Increase Your Word Power.

pelathais · #17 08-28-2009, 12:28 AM

I will await my expected beatings...

MissBrattified · #18 08-28-2009, 12:30 AM

I'm trying to be good, pel, and I'm so tired I feel a little green around the gills. I think I should just go to bed.

So...

You've been spared.

Michael The Disciple · #19 08-28-2009, 05:12 AM

Quote:

4: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

1 Cor. 11:4

This is Pauls teaching given by inspiration of the Spirit. Culture has nothing to do with it. It is an ordinance of the Church. Stoneking is in violation tho he does not believe it. He is making the commands of Christ of none affect by his tradition.

missourimary · #20 08-28-2009, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

1 Cor. 11:4

This is Pauls teaching given by inspiration of the Spirit. Culture has nothing to do with it. It is an ordinance of the Church. Stoneking is in violation tho he does not believe it. He is making the commands of Christ of none affect by his tradition.

If you feel this is the unalterable truth and the only interpretation, by all means, go call the man and teach him the error of his way. Don't accuse him on a discussion board he isn't a part of.