David Bernard Weighs In on General Board Decision

[scotty]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Telling new converts they have to shave their beards or mustaches is utter foolishness. And how about when saints transfer to a new UPC church district, and they're told they cant be used in ministry unless they shave? (even if this person has been a preacher/Sunday school teacher/musician for the Lord etc, in the past, it doesnt matter to them. They're more concerned with the mustache on his face, than his life, his heart, and what he can contribute to the Kingdom of God).

Ok , here is where we part ways, I , in my district , don't see this problem. We don't do this, and the UPC's I have attend and pastors I know in Arkansas district are not this way.

[Jehoram]

Originally Posted by scotty

Ok , here is where we part ways, I , in my district , don't see this problem. We don't do this, and the UPC's I have attend and pastors I know in Arkansas district are not this way.

How convenient.

Then apparently you have no frame of reference here.

Move along please.

People with a little grist in the mill may have something of worth to add.

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

Scotty, are you a licensed minister with the UPC?

Are you a minister at all?

And who said anything about duress?

Your comments seem very simple-minded.

*sigh*

You said there was pressure involved....pressure-duress...sorry , didn't mean to mence words with you.

No I am not a minister,

but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night

No difference, My comments are simple minded because it is not nearly as complicated as you are making it out to be. Like I said, if ministers can walk away from the org in mass without any problems or pressures then your argument is mute....

[Jehoram]

Originally Posted by scotty

*sigh*

You said there was pressure involved....pressure-duress...sorry , didn't mean to mence words with you.

No I am not a minister,

but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night

No difference, My comments are simple minded because it is not nearly as complicated as you are making it out to be. Like I said, if ministers can walk away from the org in mass without any problems or pressures then your argument is mute....

Do you mean "moot?"

Dude, you have no corn in the crib here, seriously.

Why are you discussing things you know absolutely zilch about?

Move on man!

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

How convenient.

Then apparently you have no frame of reference here.

Move along please.

People with a little grist in the mill may have something of worth to add.

You mean people who like to charactorize the whole org and its believers based on individual experiences?

As for the rest of your comment, I am afraid I will have to ask you to forget yourself my friend. As long as you speak of an org. I am a member of then I will have grist in this mill. I am glad however that those like you who believe your being a minister makes you "Holier than thou" and that the rest of us "common folk" should just shut up and stay out of your "over my head" conversations are gone from my org. You were part of the problem.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

That wouldnt be a strong argument at all. Not even close.

The issue is cultural relativism. There is no cultural relativism involved the biblical stand on homosexuality. Homosexuality is explicitly clearly spoken against in the bible. Pants are not. The Israelistes didnt even wear pants (men or women) when Moses wrote his words in Deut 22:25

Its speaks of men not wearing womens garments, and vice versa.
What counts as a "women's garment" is culturally relative.

Men wear kilts (a form of skirt) in Scotland, but no one considers it a woman's garment. East Indian women have worn pants for hundreds if not thousands of years, and they were never considered "men's garments".

Men and women both wore robes in bible days, but womens robes were distinguishable from men's robes.

And who says TR doesn't have common sense ....

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

That wouldnt be a strong argument at all. Not even close.

The issue is cultural relativism. There is no cultural relativism involved the biblical stand on homosexuality. Homosexuality is explicitly clearly spoken against in the bible. Pants are not. The Israelistes didnt even wear pants (men or women) when Moses wrote his words in Deut 22:25

Its speaks of men not wearing womens garments, and vice versa.
What counts as a "women's garment" is culturally relative.

Men wear kilts (a form of skirt) in Scotland, but no one considers it a woman's garment. East Indian women have worn pants for hundreds if not thousands of years, and they were never considered "men's garments".

Men and women both wore robes in bible days, but womens robes were distinguishable from men's robes.

Some women have mustaches.........

[SDG]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

Some women have mustaches.........

We can blame God for that ....

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

And who says TR doesn't have common sense ....

Dan, You'll change your tune when he talks about the new birth!

When TR posts, I usually read it, unless it's about political stuff! He always has reasoned responses.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

We can blame God for that ....

And certain hormones......