David Bernard Weighs In on General Board Decision - Page 39

Pressing-On · #**381** 03-04-2008, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron

Well unless you are Mr Clean I........

Seriously, wearing an earing on a man is fashionable now,but before the devil could wiggle it into main stream, an earing on a man had bad connotations.

Yes, it does have a bad connotation!

we are the pirates we don't do anything
we just stay at home, and lie around
and if you ask us, to do anything
we'll just tell you, we don't do anything

SDG · #**382** 03-05-2008, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

Why is it that "holiness" preachers seem to be so focused on sex all the time?

It's because for many it's their own personal battle.

A_PoMo · #**383** 03-05-2008, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

It's because for many it's their own personal battle.

True. But I always thought too that when they focus so much on avoiding sexuality they end up creating a hyper-sexual environment and it ends up being a bigger problem than it started out. It's kind of like trying to make yourself NOT think of doughnuts. The more you try to NOT think of doughnuts the more you actually think about it. Doh! In the case of sex, the more you think about it the more you talk and think about it some more and before long you have a problem. That's the problem w/the law, it doesn't help you it just puts the spotlight on your sin. I'm no paragon of virtue, but I can definitely say that my weakness in terms of sexuality has decreased exponentially since I left a quasi-holiness religious environment (for me it was the UPC). It's been remarkable.

Blaylock · #**384** 03-05-2008, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

How much longer do you think we'll have to wait here in the U.S. of A. until we reach that stage of enlightenment where we no longer deny people the right to marriage based on their gender.

Sir with all respect hopefully never.

scotty · #**385** 03-05-2008, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blaylock

Sir with all respect hopefully never.

AMEN

ChicagoPastor · #**386** 03-05-2008, 09:11 AM

This thread has taken so many different turns, lol
I don't know that the word 'hijacked' would be suffienct.

ChicagoPastor · #**387** 03-05-2008, 09:20 AM

Concering facial hair,
The rule against it did not come into exsitance till the 'hippie' movement. It was to counter the culture...
After that, it just stuck..it became part of Pentecostal culture...
There was NO Biblical reason why the stance was taken...other than trying to be 'different from the world'
From there some men made a doctrine of out it....at least one going as far as writing a book about facial hair

I've learned, and as many of you know, when it comes to change....specificly the loosening or lessening of rules, the Apostolic world is S L O W to change...
We were quick to enforce the facial hair rule but now decades have gone by and still no one has said, "Ok the hippie movemnt (the whole reason we made the rule) is over, let's get rid of the ban

I don't see....I think it's one of our silliest rules/stances. I Pastor a UPC Church and have NO PROBLEM at all with facial hair.
To say that facial hair has some kind of gay connotation is wayyy out there.
I hear that gay men also like to comb their hair..........should I tell my men not to comb their hair anymore?

CC1 · #**388** 03-05-2008, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChicagoPastor

This thread has taken so many different turns, lol
I don't know that the word 'hijacked' would be suffienct.

Yup. It is quite the trip from "DB weighs in on GB decision" to arguing about whether or not the majority of gays have facial hair.

Apparently Ron has only been exposed to gays in Canadian logging camps and there the majority did have facial hair.

ChicagoPastor · #**389** 03-05-2008, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC1

Yup. It is quite the trip from "DB weighs in on GB decision" to arguing about whether or not the majority of gays have facial hair.

Apparently Ron has only been exposed to gays in Canadian logging camps and there the majority did have facial hair.

LOL

The gays in my area aren't the "lumberjack looking" type....

Jehoram · #**390** 03-05-2008, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChicagoPastor

Concering facial hair,
The rule against it did not come into exsitance till the 'hippie' movement. It was to counter the culture...
After that, it just stuck..it became part of Pentecostal culture...
There was NO Biblical reason why the stance was taken...other than trying to be 'different from the world'
From there some men made a doctrine of out it....at least one going as far as writing a book about facial hair

I've learned, and as many of you know, when it comes to change....specificly the loosening or lessening of rules, the Apostolic world is S L O W to change...
We were quick to enforce the facial hair rule but now decades have gone by and still no one has said, "Ok the hippie movemnt (the whole reason we made the rule) is over, let's get rid of the ban

I don't see....I think it's one of our silliest rules/stances. I Pastor a UPC Church and have NO PROBLEM at all with facial hair.
To say that facial hair has some kind of gay connotation is wayyy out there.
I hear that gay men also like to comb their hair..........should I tell my men not to comb their hair anymore?

Oddly enough, DKB has said that in a different way. But CP, there is no ban so there is no law in the manual against it. It is an unspoken rule.