Skip to comments.
Sikh bracelets, but no Christian rings at school bans pupils from wearing 'purity rings'
Telegraph ^
| 06/18/06
| Elizabeth Day
Posted on 06/17/2006 6:25:09 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-87 next last
To: seowulf
Okay, first of all it depends on the translation you choose... New America Standard states:
1 Peter 3:3-4 3Your adornment must not be MERELY external--braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses;
4but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.
If this were not the case, he would also be BANNING THE WEARING OF DRESSES!!!
To: seowulf
More importantly, you left out the major point in the text... It was about submitting to your husband that he might come to be obedient to the Word of God.
1In the same way, you wives, BE SUBMISSIVE TO YOUR OWN HUSBANDS so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives,
2as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior.
3Your adornment must not be merely external--braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses;
4but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.
5For in this way in former times the holy women also,who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, BEING SUBMISSIVE TO THEIR OWN HUSBANDS;
To: seowulf
My two cents for the year....
Carry on.....
To: livesbygrace; Xenalyte
I think it is pretty clear that Peter was speaking against an oppulent show of wealth which is often used to put those who are not as wealthy "in their place".
He wasn't against braiding hair; he was against braiding the hair with gold and silver thread as was the custom of the time. Only the wealthy had the money, time, and labor (often slave labor) to do those intricate do's.
He wasn't against women wearing dresses, but he might have a problem with a $20,000 wedding dress, or designer fashion. Maybe even buying clothes for the label.
Whatever you do, wear, say, etc., you should always examine your motives behind them.
64
posted on
06/18/2006 10:32:29 AM PDT
by
seowulf
To: bruinbirdman
Bizarre. So purity is now evil? I don't get it. Suppose getting pregnant while as a teenager is a better option. /sarc
To: muawiyah
The other guy was the hijacker. I was just pinging you as the hijackee. :-)
To: terycarl
You wrote:
"you suggested that many Christians do not condone the wearing of any adornments whatsoever...being that Catholocism is the ONLY true Christian denomination on earth......"
HUH, HELLO!! MAY I BE SO BOLD AS TO EXPECT YOU TO SPELL THE WORD 'CATHOLICISM' CORRECTLY, IF YOU ARE GOING TO BANTY IT AROUND AS "THE ONLY TRUE CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION..."
Geezzzzzzze....
67
posted on
06/18/2006 11:05:36 AM PDT
by
Lion in Winter
(islamics arn't religious, just set on on mass murder of non-muslims! NO FAT ISLAMIC broads!!)
To: flaglady47
ping... HE EVEN SPELLED IT WRONG.
68
posted on
06/18/2006 11:06:18 AM PDT
by
Lion in Winter
(islamics arn't religious, just set on on mass murder of non-muslims! NO FAT ISLAMIC broads!!)
To: Larry Lucido
I was simply asking which "true" Catholic church.
You know, this gets tough to juggle when you have friends in several of them! (ROTFLMAO)
69
posted on
06/18/2006 12:07:58 PM PDT
by
muawiyah
(-)
To: Lion in Winter
Am I wrong in believing that members of orders whose members take a vow of poverty tend to not wear jewelry?
70
posted on
06/18/2006 12:09:13 PM PDT
by
muawiyah
(-)
To: muawiyah
I was simply asking which "true" Catholic church. I don't know. I've been kicked out of all of them. :-)
To: cricket
Do not worry - they are killing themselves via abortion. A couple more missing generations and we will never have to worry about liberalism again. Sad, but true.
72
posted on
06/18/2006 12:22:02 PM PDT
by
DennisR
(Look around - God is giving you countless observable clues of His existence!)
To: seowulf; livesbygrace; Xenalyte
Here's my $.02- if you care to know what I think:
Peter basically meant that your inner beauty is more important than your outer beauty. He didn't legalistically mean you can't wear makeup and braid your hair, but that being preoccupied with outward appearance is unwise, if we neglect the true potential for beauty within.
That legalistic translation just devalues the spiritual content of the verse, lowering the standard to a carnal meaning, and putting the emphasis 180 degrees from the point of the verse in the first place.
73
posted on
06/18/2006 12:34:28 PM PDT
by
ovrtaxt
(Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie!'... till you can find a rock.)
To: ovrtaxt
That legalistic translation just devalues the spiritual content of the verse
We are basically in agreement on this. Jesus came to fulfill the law, not do away with it. That is, he was doing away with the legalistic proscription which forced compliance from the outside and replaced it with the desire within to do the right thing.
That is not to say that if you slip a diamond ring on your finger you're doomed to hell. However, If you go all out with the bling bling, with a $10K ring on every finger, you become less approachable to a larger number of people. It is the business of Christians to be approachable. The point is that if you get to the point where your jewellry, make-up, clothes, cars, homes, etc. become more important to you than your Christianity, then you have a problem.
74
posted on
06/18/2006 12:54:40 PM PDT
by
seowulf
To: bruinbirdman
Not surprising in a country that has banned guns and wants desperately to ban knives. You must be open to being screwed or you are not being very British.
75
posted on
06/18/2006 12:58:25 PM PDT
by
Modok
To: seowulf
We are basically in agreement on this.Exactly. Otherwise, a wedding ring is somehow sinful?
Be blessed.
:)
76
posted on
06/18/2006 1:02:56 PM PDT
by
ovrtaxt
(Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie!'... till you can find a rock.)
To: DennisR
Do not worry - they are killing themselves via abortion. A couple more missing generations and we will never have to worry about liberalism again. Sad, but true. Never quite thought of the possibilities here. . .
However, there is one aspect not counted here; and that is how many women are still having babies. . .becuase it increases their welfare check. . .(is the limit three yet?)
Oh, well. . .a few Libs around cannott make too much difference. . .
Oh. . .no; we didn't count all those in power positions. . .from around the world; i.e. the United Nations. . .which wants to be OUR Government as in 'Master' Government. . .
Okay. . .just one day at a time here,. . .;^)
77
posted on
06/18/2006 1:39:53 PM PDT
by
cricket
To: Paperdoll
"OH, this has happened uncountable times in the U.S.A.."
Purity rings being banned by schools? I think not.
78
posted on
06/18/2006 3:08:01 PM PDT
by
swmobuffalo
(The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.)
To: bruinbirdman
The students should take the headmaster hostage and then record themselves while they saw off his/her head.
Once they put that video on the Internet they'll be allowed to wear the rings ASAP.
79
posted on
06/18/2006 3:47:38 PM PDT
by
MrBambaLaMamba
(Buy 'Allah' brand urinal cakes - If you can't kill the enemy at least you can piss on their god)
To: swmobuffalo
>Purity rings being banned by schools? I think not.<
I was not referring to purity rings. I was referring to Bibles, or papers written by children on Jesus, or many other things Christian including prayer. Small children have been belittled by the public schools for these things, and it breaks my heart.
80
posted on
06/18/2006 6:00:04 PM PDT
by
Paperdoll
(.........on the cutting edge)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-87 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson