Boyfriend's heavy church involvement

[ffbruce]

(Follower;62649)
They're both products of the modern, more "tolerant" church that is in popular decline. You might not see a connection, but where there's correlation, there's something to investigate.There is no connection. And the modern church is not in decline. Some churches are declining, while others are growing. Actually, about the only places in the world where the church is not growing are Europe and the United States. And it has nothing whatever to do with the length of people's hair.Let's not quibble. The question still stands, why do you refuse to recommend for others what you think is good for your own family, your boys or yourself?Simple. Your style of hair is your choice, as is mine. Now - find me a Scripture where Jesus specifically commands us to wear our hair in a certain way, or get off it.I don't equate baldness with skinhead neonazis. So your personal opinion and/or experience is the universal norm? And I'm not talking about baldness. I'm talking about a specific buzz-cut haircut.That would require some offensive tattoos, grunginess, and such. Suppose a couple of nice kids who looked like skinhead neonazis started regularly attending your church and wanted to serve some function in the church, would you not say something about their appearance to them? Would I TELL THEM THEY HAD TO DRESS AND LOOK A CERTAIN WAY? No. Would we talk about it? That depends on how offensive their appearance was.Rather, let me ask this, just a simple yes or no, have you ever been in this situation and not said anything?A simple yes or no is not adequate - so stop trying to put me in a box. The answer depends entirely upon the situation.The thing about teenagers, and I was not an exception, is that they're really ignorant. Some of them have lousy parents, which doesn't help. These kids might not know any better than some of the things they do. It's not that they've chosen these things, they just don't know better. Most of the time, our parents do a good job of guiding us, but not all the time. So, would't it be nice if more adults were willing to be more helpful to the children in their association? It would actually be much better if adults actually focused on the things that really matter. The way a kid looks is relatively insignificant in comparison to what's on the inside.This has nothing to do with what the pastor looks like.But it has EVERYTHING to do with a pastor being overbearing, controlling and manipulative.
A pastor leading people to dress appropriately at church is one thing. A pastor telling people how they have to dress, and telling them what style of haircut is and is not acceptable, is not acceptable.The pastor of said church needs to spend more time helping people be like Jesus, and less time trying to make them little clones of himself.

 

[Follower]

(ffbruce;62670)
Your style of hair is your choice, as is mine.
Why did you make the choice for short hair? Do you enjoy frequent trips to the barber? Maybe you used the magic 8-ball "Should I have short hair?"The truth is, you have short hair because of what it says to other people about you.
There is no connection. And the modern church is not in decline. Some churches are declining, while others are growing. Actually, about the only places in the world where the church is not growing are Europe and the United States. And it has nothing whatever to do with the length of people's hair.
The "modern, more 'tolerant'" church I spoke of is the US and European church. It is undeniably in decline. The connection between long hair and same-sex marriage being more popular in the church is that they both result from attempts to appear less judgemental. You're just not yet as tolerant as some of those folk in San Francisco. But, this tactic has not resulted in a growing church because it makes the church irrelevant.
Simple. Your style of hair is your choice, as is mine. Now - find me a Scripture where Jesus specifically commands us to wear our hair in a certain way, or get off it.
You know Paul said men shouldn't have long hair. How about this instruction from God for priests, "They must not... let their hair grow long, but they are to keep the hair of their heads trimmed." (I wouldn't want to tell God that hair length doesn't matter.)
It would actually be much better if adults actually focused on the things that really matter. The way a kid looks is relatively insignificant in comparison to what's on the inside.
I wonder how it would have worked out for you when you were trying to get your current job if you had long hair and you argued "it doesn't really matter."
A pastor leading people to dress appropriately at church is one thing. A pastor telling people how they have to dress, and telling them what style of haircut is and is not acceptable, is not acceptable.
No one was told what hairstyle to get, only that long hair is not appropriate. So, have you changed your mind?
The pastor of said church needs to spend more time helping people be like Jesus, and less time trying to make them little clones of himself.
If men want to be like Jesus, they should get short hair like Jesus must have had.

 

[ffbruce]

(Follower;62679)
Why did you make the choice for short hair? Do you enjoy frequent trips to the barber? Maybe you used the magic 8-ball "Should I have short hair?" The truth is, you have short hair because of what it says to other people about you.Sorry, but that is absolutely wrong. You don't even know whether or not my hair is short! Furthermore, you can't explain what the acceptable definition of "short hair" is.

The "modern, more 'tolerant'" church I spoke of is the US and European church. It is undeniably in decline. Oh, gotcha. Long hair is the reason the church is in decline - regardless of the fact that many church in the United States are actually growing rapidly. NOT! The connection between long hair and same-sex marriage being more popular in the church is that they both result from attempts to appear less judgemental. There is no connection between long hair and same-sex marriage in church. That is nothing short of absurd. No wait, wait!!! Actually, a gentleman I'm ministering to - who is homosexual - has extremely short hair. So maybe I should make some asinine connection about how short hair being allowed in church is bring out the homosexual in people. I think I may be onto something here!You're just not yet as tolerant as some of those folk in San Francisco. But, this tactic has not resulted in a growing church because it makes the church irrelevant. Irrelevant? San Fransisco? Who said anything about San Fransisco? The irrelevant church is the one that majors in minors, and tries to force people to dress as if it were still 1955.You know Paul said men shouldn't have long hair. How about this instruction from God for priests, "They must not... let their hair grow long, but they are to keep the hair of their heads trimmed." (I wouldn't want to tell God that hair length doesn't matter.)Do you have any idea WHY Paul wrote these things in 1st Corinthians 11? Apparently not, or you wouldn't try to make that a universal command. I'd venture a guess that your wife doesn't wear a veil either. Why not? And do you ever wear a hood, a cap, or a stocking cap? Shame, Shame, Shame!!!!!I wonder how it would have worked out for you when you were trying to get your current job if you had long hair and you argued "it doesn't really matter."Why are you making the assumption that I have short hair?No one was told what hairstyle to get, only that long hair is not appropriate. So, have you changed your mind?Nope. Not at all. I'm not into trying force irrelevant issues.If men want to be like Jesus, they should get short hair like Jesus must have had.This is one of the most absurd and laughable statements I've ever read. Did Jesus also have blonde hair and blue eyes? I want you to back this up with Scripture, or admit that you are completely off base, and flat-out wrong about this. :naughty:
Wow. I'm surprised by this - especially your last assertion. Really, I am.

 

[Carico]

(Jules C;60319)
I sometimes get concerned over how influential the church is over its members. My boyfriend is with one such powerful church. Although it's nominally my church too, I wonder about the extent of the hold it can have over people.David is very immersed in his church's teachings for over a year, and the change in him has been huge, most of it for the better. It is nominally my church too, although I'm not as heavily into it as he is. Yet the church leaders are very exacting and demanding, frowning on insubordinate women, or men who don't wear ties or have long-ish hair! And there are other things. People have pointed out to me that the extent of the influence and accountability go, in their view, too far. To my mind, there has to be a point at which accoutability ends, and the individual is free to do as he/she wishes.I don't want to discourage David, as he's a very popular and useful member of the church but I want to have a life outside the church too. Does that make me a rebel? David is certainly one no longer, and he has a purpose and direction. Yet that shouldn't mean, should it, that he has to obey his leaders in everything?
We must be extremely careful not to worship people in a church. Jesus says we have one teacher and that is the Christ so each of us must be taught by God's word. So if we don't read the bible, we couldn't spot a false teacher if he stood right in front of us.

 

[Follower]

(ffbruce;62695)
You don't even know whether or not my hair is short! Furthermore, you can't explain what the acceptable definition of "short hair" is.
Yeah, like you have long hair. And, claiming I can't define short hair is an attempt to obfuscate. Whatever long hair is, you're defending it.
Do you have any idea WHY Paul wrote these things in 1st Corinthians 11? Apparently not, or you wouldn't try to make that a universal command. I'd venture a guess that your wife doesn't wear a veil either.
Why did Paul write those things? You tell me. He wrote those things and the reason he wrote them is only secondary.Women should wear a head covering.
This is one of the most absurd and laughable statements I've ever read. Did Jesus also have blonde hair and blue eyes? I want you to back this up with Scripture, or admit that you are completely off base, and flat-out wrong about this.
Why do you bring up hair and eye color? If I thought Jesus looked like his popular pictures, I'd say he had long hair. But, in the earliest picture of Jesus I know of, he has short hair. I say Jesus had short hair for several reasons. One, for whatever reason Paul has in 1Co11 to say men should have short hair. Two, because Jesus wasn't a Nazirite (the Jews who under vow didn't cut their hair or drink). Three, because God instructs priests to have short hair (Jesus is our high priest). Four, because when the pharisees were calling Jesus such things as a drunkard and a glutton, they didn't also call him a hippie. Five, because Paul, an eye witness of Jesus, was an imitator of Christ and Paul instructs us to be imitators of him when he talks about short hair (hey, I found a use for your clone argument). Six, because Jesus wasn't wasn't a gender-bender.

 

[Prizm]

(Follower;62711)
I say Jesus had short hair for several reasons. One, for whatever reason Paul has in 1Co11 to say men should have short hair. Two, because Jesus wasn't a Nazirite (the Jews who under vow didn't cut their hair or drink). Three, because God instructs priests to have short hair (Jesus is our high priest). Four, because when the pharisees were calling Jesus such things as a drunkard and a glutton, they didn't also call him a hippie. Five, because Paul, an eye witness of Jesus, was an imitator of Christ and Paul instructs us to be imitators of him when he talks about short hair (hey, I found a use for your clone argument). Six, because Jesus wasn't wasn't a gender-bender.
'nuff said. I used to have long hair in a ponytail before I was really saved. I grew up in church and I knew the Bible's perspective on long hair on men (my own research came to the same conclusion of the above post). So one thing I wanted to do when I got saved was cut it short.Beforehand, I could've also argued, "well what's long anyway?". If you have to ask that question, then it's long. God wants men to look masculine, not effeminate. And if you're in some sort of ministry in the church, then you need to follow the biblical example and standard.

 

[Follower]

(Prizm;62728)
'nuff said. I used to have long hair in a ponytail before I was really saved.
I'm glad someone agrees with me on something.

Some people argue that when Paul says men should have short hair, that it's just a cultural thing related to the first century culture. Paul explains that his instructions relate to chain of authority, not culture. Isn't it part of our culture for men to have shorter hair than woman? What planet do these culture-excuse people live on? I bet it was more common for men to have long hair in ancient times because getting a haircut would have been much more challenging then now - this is probably why it's so common for actors and depictions of ancient men, including Jesus, to have long hair. Modern people often use the "culture" argument to rationalize ignoring parts of the Bible. I don't see Jesus and the early Christians to be the kind of people who would give much weight to the cultural standards of their day for guidance in religious practices. The Apostle Paul slams the door on people who wants to argue against the practice of short hair for men. "If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God." People reject Paul's instruction on hair length because today it's not politically correct for men to have authority over women. For many people, Christianity has become a religion of convenience and tolerance rather than of reverence and righteousness.

 

[ffbruce]

Follower... you obviously do not understand why Paul wrote what he did, about hair and head coverings, in 1st Corinthians 11. And you obviously do not abide by it, as evidenced by the fact that you refuse to admit that you do indeed wear caps, hats and stocking caps. Shame on you!

 

[ffbruce]

(Follower;62711)
Yeah, like you have long hair. And, claiming I can't define short hair is an attempt to obfuscate. Whatever long hair is, you're defending it.It is very interesting - and telling - how many assumptions you make. You make them about me, and you read your own assumptions into what the Bible says.At least your consistent in your incorrect assumptions.Why did Paul write those things? You tell me. He wrote those things and the reason he wrote them is only secondary.Women should wear a head covering. Thank you for admitting that you have absolutely no idea why Paul wrote that, or what it actually means. You simply found verse - one sentence - that says what you want to believe, so you're hanging onto it, regardless...And why don't you admit that you actually violate what Paul wrote, and you wear hats, caps and stocking caps? Shame on such hypocrisy! Why do you bring up hair and eye color? If I thought Jesus looked like his popular pictures, I'd say he had long hair. But, in the earliest picture of Jesus I know of, he has short hair. I say Jesus had short hair for several reasons. One, for whatever reason Paul has in 1Co11 to say men should have short hair. Two, because Jesus wasn't a Nazirite (the Jews who under vow didn't cut their hair or drink). Three, because God instructs priests to have short hair (Jesus is our high priest). Four, because when the pharisees were calling Jesus such things as a drunkard and a glutton, they didn't also call him a hippie. Five, because Paul, an eye witness of Jesus, was an imitator of Christ and Paul instructs us to be imitators of him when he talks about short hair (hey, I found a use for your clone argument). Six, because Jesus wasn't wasn't a gender-bender.You've seen PICTURES of Jesus? Wow! First, Paul speaking about short hair had NOTHING to do with Jesus. Period. Second, it wasn't only the Nazirites who had "longer than a butch" hair. Third, Jesus was NOT a priest, according to his contemporaries. Fourth, they didn't call Jesus a Hell's Angel either - evidence (by your reasoning) that he rode a Honda! Fifth, do you have Scriptural evidence that Paul was an eyewitness of the physical Jesus? Sixth, not even worth responding to.
The bottom line is that you have absolutely no idea what Jesus looked like, nor do you have any idea what length hair he had.

 

[ffbruce]

(Follower;62739)
I'm glad someone agrees with me on something.

Some people argue that when Paul says men should have short hair, that it's just a cultural thing related to the first century culture. Paul explains that his instructions relate to chain of authority, not culture. Much of what Paul wrote about concerned Christians' freedom in a culture that didn't understand it. If you don't know that, you simply do not know anything about Paul's writings.Isn't it part of our culture for men to have shorter hair than woman? What planet do these culture-excuse people live on? I bet it was more common for men to have long hair in ancient times because getting a haircut would have been much more challenging then now - this is probably why it's so common for actors and depictions of ancient men, including Jesus, to have long hair. Wow - sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense at all. Modern people often use the "culture" argument to rationalize ignoring parts of the Bible. I don't see Jesus and the early Christians to be the kind of people who would give much weight to the cultural standards of their day for guidance in religious practices. This comment again betrays your ignorance of the context and meaning of Scripture. If you had any understanding of the cultural context into which Paul wrote, you wouldn't write these kinds of things. The Apostle Paul slams the door on people who wants to argue against the practice of short hair for men. "If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God." Again, you're wrong. Paul doesn't "slam the door". He simply isn't willing to argue about it, because it's not worth arguing about. People reject Paul's instruction on hair length because today it's not politically correct for men to have authority over women. For many people, Christianity has become a religion of convenience and tolerance rather than of reverence and righteousness.And many people LOVE to read into Scripture things that aren't there. It makes them feel superior, and in a position to judge and condemn people over non-essentials.
Go ahead and wear your hair whatever length you want. Just don't be so judgmental toward people who do not agree with you.

 

[SoldierforChrist]

ffbruce,It is "christians" like you that are responsible for the liberal rise, and the biblical decline in our churches. You say you are a pastor, and yet my younger brothers and sisters seem to be more established in the Word than you are. You say that we should not "push" phyical standards on church members, yet there are whole chapters full of standards for christians in the Bible. The problem with you is that you are more worried about pleasing everyone and building your church attendence then you are about actually preaching what the Bible says. It clearly states it is a shame for a man to have long hair, yet you choose to reprove David's pastor for telling him that... You are more interested in filling your church with lukewarm christians than having handful of true godfearing and honouring christians. What a shame. What a shame.

 

[ffbruce]

(SoldierforChrist;62757)
ffbruce,It is "christians" like you that are responsible for the liberal rise, and the biblical decline in our churches. You say you are a pastor, and yet my younger brothers and sisters seem to be more established in the Word than you are. You say that we should not "push" phyical standards on church members, yet there are whole chapters full of standards for christians in the Bible. The problem with you is that you are more worried about pleasing everyone and building your church attendence then you are about actually preaching what the Bible says. It clearly states it is a shame for a man to have long hair, yet you choose to reprove David's pastor for telling him that... You are more interested in filling your church with lukewarm christians than having handful of true godfearing and honouring christians. What a shame. What a shame.
This isn't even worth responding to.

 

[Carico]

First, Paul speaking about short hair had NOTHING to do with Jesus. Period. Second, it wasn't only the Nazirites who had "longer than a butch" hair. Third, Jesus was NOT a priest, according to his contemporaries. Fourth, they didn't call Jesus a Hell's Angel either - evidence (by your reasoning) that he rode a Honda! Fifth, do you have Scriptural evidence that Paul was an eyewitness of the physical Jesus? Sixth, not even worth responding to.
Incorrect. Read Hebrews 4:14-5:10 to see that Jesus not only was a priest, he is our HIGH PRIEST. Secondly, the pictures we have of Jesus came from the imaginations of his painters and were a reflection of the society in which those painters lived. That's one reason why God told us not to form images or icons of anything either above the earth or below. So claiming that Paul wasn't talking about Jesus is a made up belief. Your beliefs thus have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the bible. They come from society.

 

[ffbruce]

(Carico;62810)
Incorrect. Read Hebrews 4:14-5:10 to see that Jesus not only was a priest, he is our HIGH PRIEST. Secondly, the pictures we have of Jesus came from the imaginations of his painters and were a reflection of the society in which those painters lived. That's one reason why God told us not to form images or icons of anything either above the earth or below. So claiming that Paul wasn't talking about Jesus is a made up belief. Your beliefs thus have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the bible. They come from society.
Was Jesus a priest of the Levitical order? No, he absolutely was not. He was of the tribe of Judah, not Levi. The writer of Hebrews speaks of Jesus as being a priest IN THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK - which was BEFORE the Levitical Priesthood. Jesus' priesthood is transcendent of the temporary Levitical priesthood, therefore the physical requirements of the Levitical priesthood had nothing whatever to do with Jesus. Get your information right.

 

[ffbruce]

I am dumbfounded by both the arrogance, the ignorance and the judgmental attitudes expressed in this thread. Unbelievable.I've noticed that Follower has repeatedly refused to answer the question of whether or not he ever does, or ever has, worn a cap, hat or stocking cap - and whether he forces his wife to wear head-covering at all times. And the reason why he refuses to answer is obvious: The answer would publicize his "pick-and-choose-what-I-want-to-follow" hypocrisy. So I'm going to ask it yet again, Follower (and I expect SoldierForChrist and Carico to answer the same question): HAVE YOU EVER, OR DO YOU EVER, WEAR A CAP, A HAT, OR A STOCKING CAP? Yes, or No.I've also noticed that there is a profound ignorance of Scripture being proposed here. The idea that Jesus absolutely HAD TO HAVE HAD SHORT HAIR - because you said so! - is absurd. Claiming to have seen "pictures" of Jesus. Asinine... The TRUTH is that Scriptures say NOTHING as to the length of Jesus' hair, and anybody who says otherwise is lying. I've also noticed a dogged insistence on forcing meaning into 1st Corinthians 11, that simply is not there. Demanding universal application (of pet interests) from Scripture that is clearly connected to the culture of its writing. - Are you people going to continue to ignorantly deny the fact that in Greek culture of that day, long hair was often worn by homosexuals - and that Paul didn't want Christians to exercise their freedom in Christ to the point it made unbelievers suspicious of their sexuality?- Are you people going to continue to ignorantly deny the fact that Roman priests would pull their togas over their heads, while offering pagan prayers and sacrifices - and that Paul didn't want Christians to exercise their freedom in Christ to the point it made people wonder if they were just another pagan cult?- Are you people going to continue to ignorantly deny that long-haired men could have been mistaken for Greek sophists - deceptive philosophers - and that Paul didn't want Christians to exercise their freedom in Christ to the point it made unbelievers wonder if they were deceivers?- Are you people going to continue to ignorantly deny the fact that women with "undone hair" were often viewed as single or, worse yet, available prostitutes - and that Paul didn't want these women's freedom in Christ to lead unbelievers to wonder if Christian meetings were really orgies? Or maybe Paul wanted them to not wear their hair too short, because it would lead people to believe they were "convicted" Jewish adulteresses, or masculine lesbians. Perhaps some of you Biblical "scholars" can explain why you're so adamant about hair lengths, when the Greek word "kephale" - used in 1st Corinthians 11 - doesn't always mean the same thing. Would you care to explain that?And would you care to explain - with proof-positive, unquestionable evidence - whether Paul was writing about ALL women & ALL men, or just about husbands and wives? I DARE you to try to come up with scholarly evidence PROVING one point of view or the other.Bottom line: Those societal norms, customs and assumptions have CHANGED. Modern American culture does NOT lead anybody to believe a woman is a lesbian if her hair doesn't completely cover her ears. Neither are men though of as pagan priests, if they have shoulder-length hair that DOES cover their ears. But mostly, I'm going to strongly suggest to Follower, and especially to SoldierForChrist and Carico: GROW UP Are you guys 12-years old, or what? The fact is, you 3 are completely out of your league here, and you need to knock it off.

 

[Follower]

(ffbruce;62814)
I've noticed that Follower has repeatedly refused to answer the question of whether or not he ever does, or ever has, worn a cap, hat or stocking cap - and whether he forces his wife to wear head-covering at all times.
It is not my practice, nor the practice of the men of any church I have ever attended, to wear a head covering whenever praying or prophesying. Even if I were out in a baseball field, I'd remove my hat for the prayer. In churches I've attended, some women do wear a head covering, but most don't. I do not defend that and I think the church is worse off for it. I frequently speak out against the worldly nature of the modern church, which contributes to the declining Christian influence in American society.Even if I were hypocritical, that would not make you right. But, it is you who are hypocritical. First, you do not recommend to others what you believe is best for you and your family. Now, you accuse me of being judgemental. That itself is being judgemental, and you don't reserve that judgement to just me, but also to said minister who directed his protege to get a haircut.
The idea that Jesus absolutely HAD TO HAVE HAD SHORT HAIR - because you said so! - is absurd.
You brought up Jesus. You said the preacher should help others be more like Jesus. So, I considered what Jesus is like and all indications is that he had short hair. Your whole argument is based not on the evidence, which is strongly against you, but on a lack of a direct declaration that Jesus had short hair. (Of course, I know when you said "be like Jesus" you meant it in a mushy, intangible way.)
- Are you people going to continue to ignorantly deny the fact that in Greek culture of that day, long hair was often worn by homosexuals - and that Paul didn't want Christians to exercise their freedom in Christ to the point it made unbelievers suspicious of their sexuality?
Paul didn't give the homosexual appearance as his reason. But, even if he had, how is that different from today? Your own argument works against you because if that's Paul's reason, it applies today, as well. Long hair is a common trait among non-butch homosexual men and short hair is a common trait among homosexual women, backwards from the normal practice of heterosexuals - probably just as much so today as 2000 years ago.
- Are you people going to continue to ignorantly deny the fact that Roman priests would pull their togas over their heads, while offering pagan prayers and sacrifices - and that Paul didn't want Christians to exercise their freedom in Christ to the point it made people wonder if they were just another pagan cult?
They pulled their toga's over their heads to avoid distraction while praying. There's nothing pagan about trying to avoid distraction. And, Christians were in no danger of anyone thinking they were Roman priests. Why do you still ignore the reasons Paul gives?Your line of argument is also used by "Christians" who defend homosexual behavior. They claim the Bible's objections to such behavior is purely about pagan practices.
- Are you people going to continue to ignorantly deny that long-haired men could have been mistaken for Greek sophists - deceptive philosophers - and that Paul didn't want Christians to exercise their freedom in Christ to the point it made unbelievers wonder if they were deceivers?
But, it's perfectly okay for Christians today to be mistaken for hippies? You seem to believe Jesus had long hair, was it okay for Jesus to be mistaken for a Greek sophist or a homosexual?
Perhaps some of you Biblical "scholars" can explain why you're so adamant about hair lengths, when the Greek word "kephale" - used in 1st Corinthians 11 - doesn't always mean the same thing. Would you care to explain that?
In the KJV, Kephale is always translated the same way, head. Even if someone chooses a different translation, what is there to explain?

 

[ffbruce]

(Follower;62815)
It is not my practice, nor the practice of the men of any church I have ever attended, to wear a head covering whenever praying or prophesying. Even if I were out in a baseball field, I'd remove my hat for the prayer.
So... you admit that you are in direct violation of what the apostle Paul wrote in 1st Corinthians 11:7. "A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God;"How DARE you be such a hypocrite? Paul makes no direct provision for "a man ought not to cover his head ...unless he's at a baseball game" or "...unless he thinks the hat looks really cool" or "...unless it's really cold outside and his ears are freezing."Paul simply, and directly says, "I man ought not to cover his head." Period.You're condemning men for what you consider to be hair that's too long, while you're wearing a cap. Tsk Tsk Tsk...Or is there some special reason that the clear, direct and succinct words of the apostle Paul do not apply to YOU? :naughty:

 

[Jordan]

(ffbruce;62822)
(Follower;62815)
It is not my practice, nor the practice of the men of any church I have ever attended, to wear a head covering whenever praying or prophesying. Even if I were out in a baseball field, I'd remove my hat for the prayer.
So... you admit that you are in direct violation of what the apostle Paul wrote in 1st Corinthians 11:7. "A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God;"How DARE you be such a hypocrite? Paul makes no direct provision for "a man ought not to cover his head ...unless he's at a baseball game" or "...unless he thinks the hat looks really cool" or "...unless it's really cold outside and his ears are freezing."Paul simply, and directly says, "I man ought not to cover his head." Period.You're condemning men for what you consider to be hair that's too long, while you're wearing a cap. Tsk Tsk Tsk...Or is there some special reason that the clear, direct and succinct words of the apostle Paul do not apply to YOU? :naughty:Not to get into the topic of having a long hair, is it a SIN to wear a hat?I'm afraid not.

 

[ffbruce]

(Jordan;62826)
Not to get into the topic of having a long hair, is it a SIN to wear a hat?I'm afraid not.
Same passage of Scripture. You cannot have one without the other.

 

[Jordan]

(ffbruce;62827)
(Jordan;62826)
Not to get into the topic of having a long hair, is it a SIN to wear a hat?I'm afraid not.
Same passage of Scripture. You cannot have one without the other.So let me see if I got this right in your eyes. If I wear an item like a HAT on a hot day, with no drinks or anything and be exhausted in the heat and falls down, it's still a SIN to wear a hat?