? on rings

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>
>Back in the bible days, a man's wealth was shown by essentially what he
>could easily protect.  Back then, you basically had what you could
>either
>protect on your property or what you carried around with you.  If you
>were
>more *mobile* than stationery, the only way to make it easy to keep the
>wealth and riches mobile was to mix the wealth in with the servants
>clothes
>and hair.  To the point where a man's status (and wealth) back then was
>well 
>reflected by the jewels and fine clothing the master allowed the
>servants to
>wear.
>
>Like all things, it eventually got to the point that what's being shown
>
>back then became somewhat of beauty, status, or riches type pagent with
>
>the act of parading and flaunting became the reason instead of a
>protection
>of jewelry and posessions as the main reason.
>
>It's that outward flaunting and parading around of the jewels, jewelry,
>and 
>riches that implies by the exaggerated flaunting that "I'm better than
>you"
>or that "you're less because I've got so much" kinda attitude that God 
>rejects to.  
>
>Bro. Tyler

Bro.Tyler, it seem that what you've been told is not that jewelry is
wrong to wear but the attitude is what is wrong. How many people are
there in the church that keep the UPC's dress standards but wear
expensive watches, drive expensive cars, and live in expensive homes
just to show their wealth? I would say there are a lot of them( or at
least people try to attain these possessions to show off).Why don't the
pastors see that the scriptures are saying something that is understood
by reading between the lines and not limited to outward dress.

I have a question for all at HF. A person, who is not UPC or oneness,
told me that what the apostle put as dress standards (jewelry included)
was something that was for the church back then. He said that it was a
suggestion, not a commandment for the whole church ( something like when
Paul said it was better not to marry if a persons can). He said it is
not something Jesus would have said, so it is up to our own personal
conviction that we should follow. The question is what do you all think
about the explanation?