Пікірлер
@robertmiller812 Күн бұрын
I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering. The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus. I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long. But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way… Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off. So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15. So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.
@mattm8120 16 күн бұрын
Some have said that a woman covers her head because of the angels. They then reference Genesis where it says that the angels looked upon the daughters of men and saw that they were fair to look upon and took them as wives. So, that is why some say that women should cover their head. I don't believe that the hair is the head covering because if it was then men should shave their head as men are not to have their head covered. there is one other thing that should be pointed out and that is the Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. So, then should a woman keep her head covered at all times since a women is suppose to cover when praying? I won't get into the long hair part as the Bible doesn't say how long is long and how short is short.
@heatherrose5594 18 күн бұрын
Verse 6 made me think that the covering being discussed would be something in addition to her hair: “For if a woman does not cover her head, have her *also* cut her hair off…” (NASB)
@jesuscameintheflesh4725 18 күн бұрын
You’re thinking is correct. That’s why women always wore some kind of head covering (veil, hat, shawl, bonnet….) up until 1960.
@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Күн бұрын
There are a couple of problems with that thinking. The first and the most glaring is that this implies that believers took an extreme approach that a woman without a veil should have ALL her hair cut off. So the scenario is that a believing woman who may have long hair which probably took 6 months to a year to grow should have their hair cut off simply because they did not wear a veil. The second is that there is another more likely view that an uncovered woman means a woman who chose to cut their hair short which means they are NOT covered in long hair. So the scenario is that a woman with short hair might as well but it all off (bald). Note that the word in the KJV is shorn which means to cut all the hair off bald.
@jesuscameintheflesh4725 Күн бұрын
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter I already told you. It’s hyperbole. Why can’t you understand when literally devices are being used. It’s like when the Pharisees couldn’t understand Jesus’ sayings and took everything literally. <shaking my head>. You have their mindset when you read scripture. It simply goes over your head.
@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Күн бұрын
@@jesuscameintheflesh4725 With all due respect I don't think I was talking to you. Plus you are not making any good counterargument WITH scripture. It is easy to give a 3-lined comment that offers NO evidence that mostly contains your distress over me. How about you finally preach something that resembles scripture instead of trying to put me down. Is it because you can't?
@jesuscameintheflesh4725 Күн бұрын
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter i did. I told you verse 6 is called “hyperbole”. It’s sad you can’t grasp that concept. As you already know, I’ve dismantled your silly arguments with scripture all over KZfaq. Many other commentators have also told you your arguments are bad while defending my arguments. We’ve gone over verse 6 many times, but you refuse to use sound logic. I’ve also gone over the Greek with you, but once again you refuse to use sound logic. Paul uses the same Greek word throughout the passage for covering, but then uses a completely different word for covering when speaking of a woman’s hair. It’s because he was speaking of two coverings!!! If Verses 13-15 was Paul explaining what a covering was he would have used the same Greek word he had previously used. (Especially if verses 13-15 was defining what a covering was). Why would Paul switch Greek words if he was about to define what he meant? He wouldn’t, because it would only cause confusion. Verses 13-15, therefore, couldn’t possibly be an explanatory passage of what a covering was, but instead a rhetorical question, appealing to the nature of things, as to why it’s necessary for a woman to be covered with something OTHER than her long hair!!!
@TeausVult 18 күн бұрын
Christian women ought to cover their heads both inside and out of Church, and historically did so, though head coverings were gradually replaced by hats and eventually phased out altogether with the encroachment of secularism.
@dacoolfruit 18 күн бұрын
Covering thr hair does a few things. First, it shkws our devotion to God. Holy womenof all faiths cover. It also. shows a clear gender diffence. It also helos equalize women across the board... no one is showing off a fancy hairstyle or the beauty fo their hair... as to the angels and authority... it is hard to understand, but with the practice of the command we can see benefits in our life. I know I have bee. Covering for 6 years. I have become more modest becaus eit is weird to wear shkrts and a tanktop with your hair covered. I wear most of the time. Not legalistic about it, but it is part of getting fully dressed for me . I feel like a queen. It gives me dignity. It gives me conficldence. It sets me apart for God. It has helped me be more feminie, as someone who is a tom boy at heart. It is just a beautiful sign of being submitted tonGld'a authority. And in today's society it does stand out, but it doesn't have to be totally weird.
@FA-God-s-Words-Matter 18 күн бұрын
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions then why would Paul say in verse 7… “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue. Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold. This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look off and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair especially while praying looks uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). But since the passage in 1st Corinthians 11 already states that the man or Jesus are already referred to as the heads one should not mix things up and add that they are the covering especially when this word is referring to something else entirely, Plus it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband. So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words. “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
@FaithUnwrapped 11 күн бұрын
Thanks you for taking the time to comprehensively express your view on this. I think some points you have made were interesting. It’s been mentioned that one school of thought is 1 Corinthians 11 is meaning that a women’s covering is her long hair. Here are my conflicts with that: 1. This view indicates that ONLY women with long hair have a covering, therefore, if a women with natural short hair should shave their head (Verse 6). Since though it is disgraceful for a women to shave her hair, let her cover her head. If you refer to a covering as long hair then it reads like this. If a women has short hair let her shave her head but since it is shameful for her to shave it, let her put on long hair (to have a covering). 2. Even though the veil is not mentioned as the covering, we can conclude through historic proof that the church did this and it was a common practice. So it’s safe to assume that wether it’s a veil, shawl, hat, etc. that covering one’s head was important for our church for a longer time than not. 3. If Paul was really expressing that long hair was the covering. Wouldn’t it be more clear in the text? Instead it takes more assumption and stretching the text for it being long hair rather to simply understand that it was an actual physical covering (which would be more commonly known/assumed for the people at that time). I have never grew up with a bias on this issue nor was it taught or mentioned at my church. I looked at scripture, did research, and was convinced through reasoning and evidence that this should be practiced in our church today. Although I hold this belief, I don’t think it should divide us as brothers and sisters in Christ. My wife and I follow this tradition, but go to a church that doesn’t adhere to it. We still love them and believe that they love the Lord. I just think it’s good to try our best to apply scripture despite the differences we have. One thing I appreciate about you my friend is that you have made points and suggestions that are carefully thought about and not randomly generated through bias or the want for scripture to be what you want it to be. I have met many people who see scripture and disagree without providing thoughtful evidence. I appreciate your concern for scripture and wanting to seek truth. I pray that we both keep striving to truth on this journey with Christ, thanks again for the thoughtful response.
@FA-God-s-Words-Matter 11 күн бұрын
@@FaithUnwrapped Thank you for your kind words I have also noticed that there are some who would do better if they were to articulate their position, so as to understand their point of view and perhaps offer a meaningful but respective critique. I sincerely appreciate your concerns as to the long hair being the covering, which I would like to address. The first is that this view would indicate that only women with long hair have a covering, therefore, women with natural short hair should shave their heads (Verse 6). The difference is that this is not about those who for some reason cannot grow their hair long. It is about those who CAN and have intentionally cut their hair short. Before I begin we ought to agree upon the fact that God gave women long hair. This is what is being said in verse 15 which states that the woman’s hair was “given” to the woman which we should naturally believe that it was God who gave this to the average woman. But there is also a condition that Paul wrote when he uses the word “IF.” “But If a woman has long hair….” Therefore, this is conditional to those who have long hair. Now I am aware that some women have medical conditions that prevent them from having long hair. But in this whole passage it is about women who CAN have long hair and have INTENTIONALLY cut it short. The idea of “intention” is understood in the prior verse regarding the man who has long hair. I think we can agree that there is no condition that would prevent the man from cutting his hair. He would have to be intentionally or purposefully not cutting his hair. Therefore, there is no reason not to think that the woman who can have long hair was ALSO being intentional when she cut her hair short. In addition, aside from some medical, genetic or accidental condition, I do not think there are women with “natural” short hair, (except for the aforementioned reasons) all women can have long hair based on verse 15. Even Revelations 9:8 perpetuates the idea that women’s hair has a property that would differentiate it from a man’s, which I hope we can agree would be its length. Therefore verse 6 makes sense that it is referring to long hair: For example: “For if the woman be not covered (in long hair because she intentionally cut it short), let her also be shorn (cut bald): but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn (cut bald) or shaven (shaved bald), let her be covered (in long hair). KJV This then does not apply to those who are unable to have long hair. As for your second issue you stated that we are apparently supposed to conclude the doctrine of a synthetic head covering based on something OTHER than scripture. So, it’s not so much about scripture but something additional to scripture. But before we start making conclusions based on other things we should make sure we have exhausted all efforts to make a decent exegesis of the scripture put before us. If, as you stated correctly, “…the veil is not mentioned as the covering…” in this passage then we should ask what IS it stating? If we were to reread the verses that mention the word cover which are verses 4-7 and 13 we would find the words “cover,” “uncovered” and “not covered.” According to scholars these are used as adverbs. As if you were to say “I am going to cover or uncover my feet.” No should be thinking of a veil just the “action” of being covered or uncovered. What is missing in these verses are NOUNS that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything, we should be asking the question: What is the thing that a woman should be covered with based on the passage ALONE? So, if you do the math, you will find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So, if there is no noun for the word “veil” just like there is no word like cloth or shawl, etc yet there are 7 instances of the idea of hair, then what are we to conclude based on Scripture alone? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long. The idea of a synthetic head covering also become highly problematic because of verse 5. IF Paul were really talking about a veil, then why would Paul equate not having a veil on as having a shaved head? That is not logical. “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” So a woman even if she has long hair if she is without a veil is LIKENED to having a shaved head? That doesn’t make sense. Oh and this is just the beginning as this idea gets even weirder in verse 6. “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” So let’s be real here for a moment if Paul were saying that a woman is not covered in a veil then the reaction to this is to cut her long hair off? When presented with this implication most either say it is not true or for the most part many have dismissed it like it doesn’t exist. But the fact remains that the way it is written the idea is the action of a woman without a veil requires the reaction to be that her hair being shorn. This would seem like a very harsh reaction to simply not wearing a veil. UNLESS being uncovered does not mean “not being covered in a veil” but that she has short hair. Verses 5 and 6 makes much MORE sense if Paul were talking about hair. Because a woman with short hair being likened to someone being shorn is closer to being true than a woman with long hair without a hat or veil. So, basically the idea is if she cut her hair so short that that the reaction would be to cut it ALL off. That to me makes more sense given the alternative that is illogical (v 5) and extreme (v 6). In your third query you stated that “If Paul was really expressing that long hair was the covering. Wouldn’t it be more clear in the text?” This is exactly my point also but in terms of a veil that you yourself stated was not in the passage. If Paul were referring to a veil, then why didn’t he just say so? And as I pointed out earlier there are 7 instances that Paul is talking about hair yet NOT ONE about a veil. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way… Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off. So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15. So the facts are that there are no nouns used as evidence of a veil. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all which would not make sense with a manufactured veil. As you can see with simple logic and nothing but the Word of God can we see that God was referring to being covered in long hair. Growing up in the faith I also didn’t have an issue with this until I started studying and asking the tough questions. Am I really basing my beliefs on Scripture or history? Is God’s word not enough to prove a doctrine? Is that not what it says I ought to do (2 Tim 3:16-17)? Isn’t there biblical precedence that God’s people could be wrong on a doctrine for a long time (Acts7:47-52)? If I start implying that time and the amount of people believing in a doctrine is all one needs to accept a doctrine would not the RC church pounce on this and agree to all their false doctrines? Thank you for your response and I also pray that we both keep striving to truth. God bless.
@FaithUnwrapped 2 күн бұрын
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Thanks for your reply :) I have a video attached below that dives deep into different debates about this topic in which both of our views are represented and discussed. Would love to hear your thoughts! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ocuIlNyhnLC8lmg.htmlsi=akRkLPKoH8XctOUO
@FA-God-s-Words-Matter 2 күн бұрын
@@FaithUnwrapped Hi. Thank you for the link. I see that link goes directly to Mike Winger's channel named "All The Head Covering Debates (1 Cor 11): Women in Ministry part 10" Was that the place you wanted me to see? If so, I have been on there several times and have left some recent comments. It is definitely a good place to discuss the different views on this subject.
@jesuscameintheflesh4725 18 күн бұрын
Feminist in the 1960’s organized the “Easter Bonnet Rebellion.” They plotted and planned to receive the “Eucharist” without their heads covered to show they were no longer under male’s authority. Their plan sadly worked, as many women followed this plan. In response to this, the ecumenical council of Vatican council II declared it was no longer necessary to wear veils during mass. (I suspect they acted out of fear they’d lose women out of their churches .) Soon later, Protestant/Evangelical seminaries started teaching head coverings were no longer necessary. (I suspect they acted out of fear losing members to the Catholics.) Previous to 1960, head coverings were worn in all churches. From the early church, to the Protestant reformation, to early America, to 1960. You can’t find a single commentary that didn’t teach women to cover their heads. John Wesley, Martin Luther, John Calvin… are just a few of the prominent names who taught this practice. The head covering tradition ceased out of rebellion and fear, NOT because it was scriptural.
@jesuscameintheflesh4725 18 күн бұрын
Paul addresses the letter to the church at Corinth and “all those in everyplace call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ..”. This indicates Paul is instructing the church as a whole. Tradition: (N) the transmission of customs or beliefs from GENERATION to GENERATION, or the fact of being passed on in this way.
@MuffinTheMicrobiologist 19 күн бұрын
Im a muslim so i guess yeah they should
@iambuto2418 Ай бұрын
I love this conversation! Maybe next time picking certain clothes and saying yay or nay to whether or not they are modest could be fun
@iambuto2418 Ай бұрын
Nice!!!
@jonlannister345 2 ай бұрын
I really like super heavy metal with completely incomprehensible lyrics that I can't understand. Mostly on Bob Dylan those these days :L It's funny how the the more you get into the Bible the more you realise Elvis Presley songs that get played at 4 year olds' birthday parties are actually not appropriate at all.
@FaithUnwrapped 2 ай бұрын
That’s a good point! Some songs are hard to understand, but when you check out the lyrics it makes you do a double take.
@jessewrites17792 2 ай бұрын
You don't go into a mosque with your shoes on. Why go into a Catholic house of worship and not consider the rules.
@iambuto2418 Ай бұрын
I might go into a mosque with my shoes on.
@iambuto2418 2 ай бұрын
Dope conversation!
@yoga_danni7535 2 ай бұрын
🤦🏼♀️ Does the white guy realize that he's arguing the black guy's point? He's trying to use an analogy to bolster his argument and instead dismantled it 😂😂😂
@p.s.productions4888 2 ай бұрын
I think the purpose of the analogy was to dismantle it, they weren’t agreeing with each other
@MonsterMeatMac 2 ай бұрын
God isn’t found in crystals. The Bible is very clear that God is found in hallucinogens.
@user-tn1xv1vc2d 2 ай бұрын
In a Novus Ordo Parish you can wear what you want for most part and nobody will bat an eye. But in a Traditional Latin Mass Parish it is a Different Story. At the same time I don't believe that anyone would ask you to leave even though it would be Unacceptable.
@FaithUnwrapped 2 ай бұрын
That’s a good point!
@hanktank10 2 ай бұрын
Such a great discussion!
@BlakeG313 2 ай бұрын
So I suppose if I’m poor and can’t afford nice clothes that means I’m not accepted by the Catholic Church. Catholics are modern day pharisees
@deshyvin 2 ай бұрын
Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? ..... And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you-you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
@tamsolo1584 2 ай бұрын
You should be dressing how Jesus will receive you, not people. Christ says "come as you are" as He meets you where you're at. But, as a recovering catholic, you won't catch me in that church of Babylon. Period.
@nickgulde9203 2 ай бұрын
What do you mean by “recovering Catholic”? What happened to you?
@akadeathshotturtle4781 2 ай бұрын
Yes you should be well dressed when you go to church but no Christian should stop you from worshiping. If it is something done repeatedly out of disrespect then can be case but no one should get in your way of meeting God.
@Allison8k 2 ай бұрын
YES! you can wear what you want in a Catholic church & if you get kicked out try again in a proper city. No dress code. These people make catholics look bad.
@RobEspinoRealEstate 2 ай бұрын
Have some respect and show up looking presentable to worship the lord. Its that simple.
@iambuto2418 2 ай бұрын
Love this, bro!
@mcoo465 2 ай бұрын
Well, it’s a sign of respect to dress nicely when visiting anyone
@FaithUnwrapped 2 ай бұрын
I couldn’t agree more!