Submission? Or Power and Control?

[jfrog]

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."

Side issue:

A rule is only as good as it's enforcement. It's against the rules to go 5 mph over the speed limit and yet we all do it because even though it's clearly against the written rules we all know you typically face no reprucussions going 5 mph over the speed limit.

There's many other examples of rules on the books that have never been officially changed but aren't really enforced any longer.

The point is that the easiest way to change a rule isn't to go in and change what is written, instead it's easier to just stop enforcing the rule.

Anyways, the forum is down to a small handful of posters. Unless what she's doing is actively driving people away or keeping them from coming here who really cares?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by 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.

You can repeat your unsubstantiated claims ad nauseum but the facts remain:

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."

Sisters who wear the head covering do not do so because they want an excuse to cut their hair short. But many who refuse to cover their heads do so because they like showing off their "glory".

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by ILG

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.

I don't think the intent of people is to personally insult you. I think many find you personable and charming and love for you to be here. What people are objecting to is what they perceive as your attacking the UPC because of bitterness you feel towards that org. I think you know from many years of posting on this forum that standards elicit a strong response. So when you constantly post standards threads you must know what you are getting into.

[Aquila]

Is one's take on hair a salvation issue?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You can repeat your unsubstantiated claims ad nauseum but the facts remain:

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."

Sisters who wear the head covering do not do so because they want an excuse to cut their hair short. But many who refuse to cover their heads do so because they like showing off their "glory".

One of the interesting things I've noticed is that those alive during the time of, and immediately after, the writing of the epistle not only spoke the language that the Epistle was written in, but they also applied it in their church practice and spread this custom throughout the Western world. While they agreed that women should have long hair (they generally didn't demand uncut), they understood the point of the passage to clearly teach that a woman was to wear a head covering. It was a near universal modesty standard for women throughout those centuries and the centuries that followed. It's about modesty.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by 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.

Long does not necessarily=uncut.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by 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.

I wrote the piece so you are welcome to ask me what I meant.

It is bad because we should not be seeking power and control in this sense. We should trust God, not our own ability to keep rules so we can control outcomes.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I don't think the intent of people is to personally insult you. I think many find you personable and charming and love for you to be here. What people are objecting to is what they perceive as your attacking the UPC because of bitterness you feel towards that org. I think you know from many years of posting on this forum that standards elicit a strong response. So when you constantly post standards threads you must know what you are getting into.

Yes, I do know what I am getting into, which is why I limit it to what I feel I am capable of doing and/or defending.

Here is the thing....I don't attack anyone personally here. I write about ideas and open discussion about those ideas. Those who disagree attack me personally. It's simply uncalled for and that is what PO is pointing out and I am glad she is because it's hard to point out when you are the one being attacked and insulted. What I ask for is open and honest discussion without the nastiness. It is possible.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by ILG

Yes, I do know what I am getting into, which is why I limit it to what I feel I am capable of doing and/or defending.

Here is the thing....I don't attack anyone personally here. I write about ideas and open discussion about those ideas. Those who disagree attack me personally. It's simply uncalled for and that is what PO is pointing out and I am glad she is because it's hard to point out when you are the one being attacked and insulted. What I ask for is open and honest discussion without the nastiness. It is possible.

ILG - Let me first say that I do not mind debating with those that have different ideas than I have.
However, when someone seems to only post things that are "hot buttons" , constantly is on the opposite side of what many people here believe, is constantly bashing a certain org that many here belong to and seems to have some bitterness in their heart over said org, than I see no point in debating.
Now I know that you cannot get the full measure of a person through this medium, however, a certain amount of spirit and attitude do come through.
Since you seem to spend a large amount of your time outside of here posting anti-UPC stances, I have to consider that.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

ILG - Let me first say that I do not mind debating with those that have different ideas than I have.
However, when someone seems to only post things that are "hot buttons" , constantly is on the opposite side of what many people here believe, is constantly bashing a certain org that many here belong to and seems to have some bitterness in their heart over said org, than I see no point in debating.
Now I know that you cannot get the full measure of a person through this medium, however, a certain amount of spirit and attitude do come through.
Since you seem to spend a large amount of your time outside of here posting anti-UPC stances, I have to consider that.

That's fine. No one said you have to debate me. Choosing not to debate isn't the same as attacking and insulting. I wanted to add though, that I post about "hot button" issues because they affected me deeply and I know they affect others deeply as well. That's why I write on them. I also have a few current UPC members on my facebook group (Breaking Out) that dress conservatively and are happy doing so. They seem balanced and largely happy with their stance and views. We discuss issues with respect. My issue is not with how people choose to dress and live but with what people believe about how they choose to dress and live and, most importantly, if they feel that others are going to hell if they have a different opinion and they cannot treat them well. I have many current UPC people who are friends on my timeline. I respect their space and they respect mine. I write about these issues for those who want to think about and discuss them and there are always those here that do. If what I do is seen as "bashing" that is not my intent, but I do have the right to write and discuss my views as long as that is done respectfully and I do my best to be as respectful as possible.