|
Post by toffeecrumble on Sept 13, 2008 8:05:27 GMT -5
How can the workers justify the rapid changes that have taken place over the past few years when they have kept the way as old fashioned as possible for decades.
If trousers for women were once wrong, how can they now be alright to wear?
If long hair was once expected, how can the workers accept that many women and girls now have hair barely long enough to pin up on Sundays?
If women and girls were once expected to cover up and dress conservatively, how can the workers allow the cleavage and revealing skirts often sported in meetings and at conventions these days?
If TV was once outlawed how can the workers justify the use of TV and other media these days in the one true unchanging way?
Will there be apologies for all those people offended and exed because of these issues in the past because now they are not being persued as necessary to the faith?
|
|
otto2
Junior Member
Posts: 59
|
Post by otto2 on Sept 13, 2008 10:28:03 GMT -5
The answers are all in Colossians 2:16-23. We are exhorted not to let anyone judge us because we do not obey their rules, be it eating or drinking, or a festival, or a Sabbath day. These were a shadow of what was to come: Christs blood shed for us.
We must not be swayed by persons of false humility; and who worship angels (workers?) and we should not be swayed by their rules. Col 2 v22-23 "They are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence".
Black stockings, Hats, male/ female seating areas, all rules made up by men that have perished with use. Trousers, buns, long hair, TV, all destined to perish with use; because they are rules made up by men. And finally, preachers forbidden to marry: Harsh treatment of the body indeed; and a rule made up by men that clearly lacks any value in restraining sensual indulgence, as the information on many websites can testify.
I have not endured the hurt of some who post here; and I cannot speak for them. For me there is no need for apology, we are not made righteous because we are exes or because we did not profess. We must forgive, for unless we too repent we will all likewise perish.
|
|
|
Post by aileen on Sept 13, 2008 13:01:00 GMT -5
I disagree that ong hair is a man made rule.
The others I agree.
|
|
otto2
Junior Member
Posts: 59
|
Post by otto2 on Sept 14, 2008 10:11:59 GMT -5
Hi aileen, I'm only halfway to accepting your point about long hair not being a man made rule. 1 Corinthians 11 would be the text, especially v15; and on the face of it, it looks straightforward enough.
It's just that it's another legalistic rule which doesn't seem to fit with the general tenor of New Testament freedom in Christ.
I've heard it explained this way: Paul was talking to the Church at that time; and he's explaining to them that there should not be a blurring of the sexes due to freedom in Christ. It's like he's saying "now hold on a minute, we're not that free!"
Verse 3 says the head of every man is Christ, and the head of every woman is man; and then later, every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head, meaning dishonours Christ, and every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head, meaning dishonours her man.
When in verse 14 & 15 Paul talks about the very nature of things being being right, ie men having short hair and women having long hair, he's telling them that men should look like men and women should look like women, so that the man does not dishonour Christ and the woman does not dishonour her man.
He's telling them this according to the custom of the time, where women wore their hair long and wore a loose head covering. Men should not do this or they will look like women and dishonour Christ. Women should not have short hair and look like men, thus dishonouring men.
Today we should be the same. Women should look like women and men should look like men. It is not a legal requirement to have long hair, just a requirement to look like a woman, and in today's society a woman can look perfectly feminine without having long hair.
Therefore if a church decrees that a woman must have long hair, that would be a rule made up by men.
It's a bit of a technical point for me, frankly. I'm not a theologian; but on balance I'm persuaded by this interpretation.
The gospel is not a book of rules to be obeyed. That was the Old Testament. It's the good news of freedom in Christ, not freedom to do as we like; but freedom with understanding that we may know his good and perfect will. Romans 12:2b says "be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is- his good, pleasing and perfect will.
|
|
|
Post by pinkflipflop on Sept 14, 2008 10:48:55 GMT -5
Toffee
From my experience most of the things that you mention are not things that are allowed in Ireland!
|
|
|
Post by aileen on Sept 14, 2008 15:16:07 GMT -5
Otto,
I agree that if a man insists something thats a man-made rule. But if its a scriptural requirement, then I'd say its not man-made.
If a woman is forced to obey a scriptural requirement against her will, then (IMO) its a man-made rule.
But i see this point about long hair as being essentially scriptural.
I too have heard it rationalised as being for them in those days only. I don't accept that rationalisation.
|
|
otto2
Junior Member
Posts: 59
|
Post by otto2 on Sept 14, 2008 16:07:42 GMT -5
aileen, I'm entirely happy with that, as I say I've somewhat mixed views on it myself; and hey, my wife has long hair anyway ;D But let me ask this, if a woman has long hair, how should she wear it? I think you and I have already agreed that buns are a man made rule, so is it in your opinion ok to wear it loose, or maybe tied back in a ponytail or somesuch or what? If it's not too personal, may I ask how do you wear your hair? Otto PS: now just before I posted this I had the dreadful thought that you might not in fact be a lady; and my question would be most inappropriate!. I see you have not indicated your gender so I will assume from your name that you are indeed female; and will refer you to my question. If I have got this wrong you have my sincere apologies
|
|
theophilia
New Member
God loved me enough to meet me where I was, but too much to leave me there
Posts: 43
|
Post by theophilia on Sept 14, 2008 17:25:51 GMT -5
Dear Otto, The Trought-Maester would be proud of your accurate summary! Love, Theo PS: Forgive the 'in-joke'
|
|
otto2
Junior Member
Posts: 59
|
Post by otto2 on Sept 15, 2008 3:44:56 GMT -5
You're giving too much away my man!, do I know you?
|
|
|
Post by lovejoy on Sept 15, 2008 12:28:07 GMT -5
quote"Long hair is scriptural."
So was riding on a donkey. In fact riding on a donkey is more scriptural because Jesus actually demanded the donkey to ride upon.
Since Jesus never said aything about women sporting long hair, why are we not all riding on donkeys instead of insisting that long hair is scriptural?
For Goodnessake
|
|
otto2
Junior Member
Posts: 59
|
Post by otto2 on Sept 17, 2008 3:04:22 GMT -5
Aileen, Please forgive my personal question about hair; & ignore it (reply 6) But if you believe it is essentially scriptural to have long hair, let me ask in general; how should it be worn?
Is it, in your opinion, ok to wear it loose for example, and is it ok to have it cut, I understand some 2x2's object to having their hair cut at all (and those people always tie their hair up).
Is it ok to have your hair cut so long as it is still long hair after the trim.
I know of some 2x2's (younger ones) who wear their hair up to go to meetings; but have it loose at other times. What's your view? Thanks, otto
|
|
|
Post by aileen on Sept 17, 2008 7:51:44 GMT -5
I take this business of long hair as a command, even if not personally from Jesus, it was from those He personally appointed to their positions (such as Paul). It doesn't define "long", precisely, so i take it to mean about shoulder length. As to how its worn, It doesn't say a Bun, so I don't see that a complying. (despite how many in our fellowship wear it. We've had other errors too, this isn't unique).
Its OK (IMO) to cut hair, but should be long after the cut as you say.
I never wear my hair in a bun, but always loose, and of length about 500mm. I once grew it to about a metre, but it was unmanageable.
As to donkeys being scriptural, lovejoy, what do you mean? That ecause there were donkeys in scripture we should have them> Or are you suggesting there's an instruction that we should use donkeys?
Where you said.. "Since Jesus never said aything about women sporting long hair..." do you meant to imply that ONLY those words spoken by Jesus are valid instructions? Are those of Peter, Paul et al invalid?
|
|
|
Post by lovejoy on Sept 17, 2008 11:14:02 GMT -5
Toffee From my experience most of the things that you mention are not things that are allowed in Ireland! Yes they are. A blind eye is turned. I was there a few years ago. I saw bare midrifts - young and not so young girls; there were hairstyles barely stretched to contain the pins and shortish loose hair'; there were ample cleavages on view; there were mobile phones being used IN the meeting for texting. True I saw no trousers. You need to go to England and USA for women to get away with those, perhaps. I saw jewellery in Ireland and make up. Well any of the above would have got you eded a short number of years ago.
|
|
otto2
Junior Member
Posts: 59
|
Post by otto2 on Sept 19, 2008 14:40:22 GMT -5
Hi Aileen, Thanks for your opinion on hair, for myself, I'll stick to the view in reply 3. I'm with you though on the words of Paul being as important as the words of Jesus. The bible is the work of God, He inspired it's contributors to write what He wanted. Picking and choosing the bits we like is a non-starter, but I do think it's essential we understand the meaning Paul was trying to convey to the people at that time.
I can see lovejoy's point about donkey's though, it's the same as going out 2x2. It's a reference to what happened not a command for us to do the same.
It seems to me that 2x2's take some things literally (like going 2x2) and some things symbolically, like riding on a donkey. 2x2's would presumably interpret this as being humble or lowly; as a low key method of transport rather than a chariot or whatever. They would then seek to copy this symbolically in their lifestyle rather than actually going about on donkeys!
Another good example is washing feet. John 13:14 says "Now that I your Teacher, have washed your feet, you should also wash one anothers feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you".
This is a far stronger command, coming as it does from the very mouth of Jesus, than the third party reference to going out 2x2. Yet the workers & friends do not wash feet. They choose to take the meaning symbolically.
Another example is that of the laying on of hands during prayer. There are many examples of this in the New Testament Church, yet the workers and friends do not do this. It is only symbolic they say.
So I'd be grateful if you would explain to me why it is that such things as going 2x2; and having long hair, are matters upon which your salvation depends, and the other much repeated practices (one of which reads as a command!) like the laying on of hands, washing feet and riding on donkeys, matter little.
Who decides these rules?, what's your take on it?
Thanks, otto.
|
|
|
Post by melissa on Nov 7, 2008 13:06:15 GMT -5
I note that no one has any answers to your last pertinent questions.
Is that significant?
I think so.
|
|
otto2
Junior Member
Posts: 59
|
Post by otto2 on Nov 8, 2008 9:47:01 GMT -5
I think it's significant too melissa, its a pity; and it's sad.
It seems that for many, the board is all about scoring points for their particular view of things, and if they are backed into a corner with no way out they disappear. For myself, I would hope that I am looking for answers to questions I have, not seeking to persuade people that my view is correct. If people have answers that blow my own beliefs out of the water then I'm grateful for that; and will take note of what they say. It's just that so much of the 2x2 system just does not stack up either biblically or otherwise, for it to be exclusive. It's probably as good a system for worshipping God as any other, complete with flaws; and warts and all. It just falls flat on it's face when it's members believe they have a monopoly on the afterlife.
|
|
|
Post by toffeecrumble on Nov 11, 2008 11:02:41 GMT -5
Was it Jesus who said that there will be those of the kingdom rejected while others will be gathered in?
Last will be first and first last?
I think we can safely leave it to Him to be fair and characteristically non judgmental on all things to do with the afterlife. IMHO
|
|