Dave Bernard addresses beards

[CC1]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

Are you going to a church where the pastor is arbitrarily making up the rules as he goes? If you do not attend one of these churches, then why would you care? Do you have a beard sis?

Brother Eastman,

I resent you bringing up this sore spot with poor Michlow this way. She cannot help it that her hormonal balance lends itself to a full beard.

Now you have just added to her burden of shaving, bulk containers of Nair, and all of those painful waxing sessions.

[Michlow]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

Are you going to a church where the pastor is arbitrarily making up the rules as he goes? If you do not attend one of these churches, then why would you care? Do you have a beard sis?

Read my signature and you can probably "discern" my church attendance habits. These ignorant mindsets about meaningless trivial matters have an awful lot to do with that.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by CC1

You don't want to use cultural relativism as your measuring stick because if you do it is going to hit you in your UPC fanny when it comes to women wearing pants.

It is virtually universally accepted in the USA that pants are both men and women's apparel with women's pants having a different cut than a man's.

With as much difference between men and women's pants as there is between men's shirts and women's blouses.

Therefore a woman wearing pants is not wearing "men's apparel".

(I would add that if all pants on women are "men's apparel" then why don't you wear women's pant suits? You don't because they look and are different from men's apparel)

My dear friend, pants are not even the subject. If you want, we can go there though. (without making it a culteral argument)

[Michlow]

Originally Posted by CC1

Brother Eastman,

I resent you bringing up this sore spot with poor Michlow this way. She cannot help it that her hormonal balance lends itself to a full beard.

Now you have just added to her burden of shaving, bulk containers of Nair, and all of those painful waxing sessions.

:sshhh

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Berkeley

You already stated that it is not a salvational issue. My question to you is, why the rule? Please give a real answer.

I am the pastor it is MY pastorial judgment men cannot have facial hair and be a member of this assembly very simple.

[Sherri]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I would not serve them communion. They would just be a visitor.

You don't have open communion, where you let the people be the judge? What if someone came up to receive it? Do you tell them NO? I didn't know there were church (outside of Church of Christ) where you had to be a member to take communion.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

My dear friend, pants are not even the subject. If you want, we can go there though. (without making it a culteral argument)

I know they were not the subject but Eastman Kodak decided to play in the cultural relativism sandbox since it suited his particular point and I thought I would remind him of where that would lead.

[Michlow]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

I am the pastor it is MY pastorial judgment men cannot have facial hair and be a member of this assembly very simple.

But what gives you the right to make arbitrary rules, that you have already admitted are not biblical, and use them as criteria by which you deny others membership in the local body and more importantly communion?

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Sherri

You don't have open communion, where you let the people be the judge? What if someone came up to receive it? Do you tell them NO? I didn't know there were church (outside of Church of Christ) where you had to be a member to take communion.

I believe communion is a local church setting only members of this assembly is served communion here. I would NOT serve anyone NOT a member here.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Michlow

:sshhh

LOL!!! I hit post before I realized I had left the smileys off and when I immediately hit edit to add them it didn't seem to allow me to do that, only to change text.