UPROAR!! The LATEST on the A.A Split! you thought UPc's was Bad!!!

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

I find this a bit offensive so I'm sure the thousands of OPs who practice coving their heads in prayer would too.

A cursory glance at the underlying and implicit meaning of this scripture will erase any argument that was ever made for wearing a second covering...the covering is God given...no nead for another....This is the kind of archaic ignorance that keeps us fighting amongst ourselves and missing the bigger picture...I pastor a church and trust me this is the least of our worries in the world we pastor in today...

[simplyme]

Originally Posted by PraiseHymn

MY POINT EXACTLY! 1 Corinthians 11 is a dual rule. No covering for men, and covering for women. If hair is the covering, that means men must pray with NO HAIR on there head! HELLO somebody!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hellloooo yourself, I am SOMEBODY, simplyme.
Hey this is an excellent point, btw., I guess like broAlex I must give you one of these signs too:

[simplyme]

Originally Posted by PastorV

A cursory glance at the underlying and implicit meaning of this scripture will erase any argument that was ever made for wearing a second covering...the covering is God given...no nead for another....This is the kind of archaic ignorance that keeps us fighting amongst ourselves and missing the bigger picture...I pastor a church and trust me this is the least of our worries in the world we pastor in today...

It may not be the most major issue, but it sure is a most holy consecration to me., and actually lots of other sisters all over! We don't appreciate anyone taking it as such an act of "archaicly ignorance" and we DO read the bible; that was very rude of you to say that..and you are a pastor? Glad you're not mine.
Since you posted just to say something so rude. I guess its NOT so miminal an issue nor worry, to you, then.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by PastorV

A cursory glance at the underlying and implicit meaning of this scripture will erase any argument that was ever made for wearing a second covering...the covering is God given...no nead for another....This is the kind of archaic ignorance that keeps us fighting amongst ourselves and missing the bigger picture...I pastor a church and trust me this is the least of our worries in the world we pastor in today...

Are you aware that very, very few scholars reach another conclusion than you? Nearly all agree that a literal veil is in question in Cor. 11.

The application for today can be debated I suppose... at least it is, but very few with a more than cursory knowledge of scripture will agree that hair is the covering Paul is teaching. He clearly left that to nature.

Archaic ignorance? ... nevermind.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Thad

* * * EXTRA * * *


Also got word that they were voting to abolish the Rule on the women wearing a Veil and also wedding rings !!!


those are 2 of the BIGGEST Traditional rules of AA !!!


more info to come !

This did not happen at their last meeting ... business elections take place every two years at their GC .... no resolutions were voted on this year as they just had a controversial election slate last year.

[simplyme]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

This did not happen at their last meeting ... business elections take place every two years at their GC .... no resolutions were voted on this year as they just had a controversial election slate last year.

What a mean innuendo, this will NEVER happen, no one can vote OUT what GOD desires, but people CAN refuse to abide, that is nothing new., how dare anyone even begin to compare what is going on with UPC with AA general business, election dispute is NOT a "split" whatsoever, shame on the thread starter!
Enough! of the gossip already! Someone should take and hold this person accountable for maliciious gossip.

OH WAIT! yes someone WILL do this - its

GOD!

[simplyme]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Are you aware that very, very few scholars reach another conclusion than you? Nearly all agree that a literal veil is in question in Cor. 11.

The application for today can be debated I suppose... at least it is, but very few with a more than cursory knowledge of scripture will agree that hair is the covering Paul is teaching. He clearly left that to nature.

Archaic ignorance? ... nevermind.

GOOD post thank you! Scholars research isn't good enough for those who pick/choose what parts of scripture to believe.

[chumina]

This blogs are so old they are from 2007. Are there any new comments from August 2008? If there are please post so we can read them.

[TCSQ]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Are you aware that very, very few scholars reach another conclusion than you? Nearly all agree that a literal veil is in question in Cor. 11.

The application for today can be debated I suppose... at least it is, but very few with a more than cursory knowledge of scripture will agree that hair is the covering Paul is teaching. He clearly left that to nature.

Archaic ignorance? ... nevermind.

PRECISELY! Just a few hours of study on the subject taking my preconceived organizational pat answer, and putting it aside (Not discarding it, just being willing to look at the other side of the coin) left me with not a shadow of a doubt as to the intent of this whole passage.

What was really intriguing to me is that virtually every discussion of this subject has to start at the end and work itself forward to reach the common American UPC conclusion, but when I was willing to start at the beggining, and work my way forward addressing each verse in the light of OTHER Bible Verses it became abundantly and startlingly (to me) clear that HOLD ON TO YOUR SEATS! I WAS WRONG in the pat "A womans hair is given her for her covering and that settles it" response to the veil issue.

Love the way that those who don't see a veil here virutally without exception have to call the intelligence and understanding of those who do into question.

I was on the veil thread a while back and noticed that even though I presented the thorough and widely recognized as probably the top in the field of Greek New Testament commentary definitions the only response or actually attempt at defense my "opponent" could come up with was that I was ...."A VICTIM UNTO REGURGITATION" (Which I love so much I almost want to change my name on the group from TCSQ to Victim Unto Regurgitation)

Anyway I am with you on this. The meaning is clear to me and it is disconcerting that those who feel differently about the issue have to resort to impugning intellect, character, and relationship with God!

[TCSQ]

Originally Posted by Monkeyman

My eldest sister taught at WABC Bible School in the 70's, in fact she taught what turned out to be a lot of these UC preachers, hmmmm...anywho, she continued to wear the veil while teaching and attending the UPC church, everyone left her alone and she received no grief over it. She was highly respected, and she believed she respected God by doing so, no harm no foul.

Are you talking about Margie Ramirez???!!!