Note: I acknowledge that there is no suppose private interpretation of the bible scripture (II Peter 1:20) hence, I subject this writing to other spirit. Should you find my writing to be totally wrong, I would then appreciate if you could correct me and or rebuke me (II Timothy 3:16). Let's reason together (Isaiah 1:18) so as to bring the matter into the light, I can be reach at sherwincablao@gmail.com.
Subject: Church Modesty Clarification
“A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 22:5 NKJV)
in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. (I Timothy 2:9-10 NKJV)
Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— (I Peter 3:3 NKJV)
Before anything else, I'm writing not to press on what I believe or understand rather my intention is to clarify and be enlightened. I'm writing not to avoid proper verbal discussion but rather to clearly state how I understand as I sometime cannot express my thought verbally. My intention is for my understanding and conviction be in line with God's word. As a child grow with a lot of question in mind, I, also like a child have question in mind for enlightenment. In advance, I ask forgiveness shall the one reading this feel offended, it is by all means not my intention but simply to be enlightened. I also request that to anyone who read this writing, please have patience to read it from start to end with understanding that, I am yearning to learn and to be enlightened and not to alter or change once belief nor offend anybody.
First is our Godly modesty standard:
Based on my understanding on the verses as highlighted above, the woman and a Man in Christ must dress in modest apparel. The verses did not detail to what exactly is the extent of modesty standard (i.e what type of clothing to wear, how it will be wear, etc.)
I understand that the church teaching for modesty standard is that, a woman cannot by any means wear pants or anything that has slit in between the legs anywhere, whatever a Godly woman's doing to some extreme even when sleeping. Though, in today's time there are pants made only for woman, still, it's not allowed because historically, woman only wear skirt which progressively evolve into a pants. The word says, "anything pertaining to a man" if, a woman cannot wear pants because initially woman don't wear pants then, it follows that T-shirt is also not allowed to wear by a woman, as it is historically worn by a man only and evolve to such that it can also be worn by a woman. In fact, the word implies "anything pertaining to a man" therefore, it includes all other apparel initially worn only by a man not just pants and t-shirt. So, my 1st set of question are these,
Does the church also not allowed woman to wear T-shirts? If it's not allowed, why is it not strictly prohibited with the same intensity as the how we treat lower apparel? Or, its the pants only that is not allowed to wear by a woman even if the word says "anything"? If it is? Please clarify as I'm confused.
Above is roughly an illustration of the evolution of woman who initially wore long skirt to eventually start wearing pants.
It's a fact that more than centuries ago (1900 roughly), only men wore pants and women wore skirts. Its generally not acceptable for woman to wear pants. From this historical fact, since women wore skirts initially and since God say " A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man", it follows that, women who starts wearing what was initially worn by only men (the pants) were in not compliance with God's word. Make sense it really does.
Is not God lives forever. His word is the same from beginning to end? Obviously, the beginning of time did not start in 1900. Why do we restrict and pick this years in time in the history of mankind? Since the year mentioned is not the beginning of time where God created man, His word, if we push back further to the old testament time will still be applicable. So, the complete verse says
“A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 22:5 NKJV)
Hence, also applicable to men. I will not change the idea of the teaching so as to be consistent, we are just going to push back further into the time of the old testament since His word is also applicable on that time. Illustrated on the left, is the commonly apparel for women and men on that time. So granted, woman on that time still wore long skirts. But, the verse is not exclusive to woman only, it also refers to men. Notice the man apparel in the picture. In that time, I think pants are not yet invited. Normally men and woman wore long dresses.
So, since in old testament time men wore long dresses. Applying the teaching, whereby, woman has to wear modest skirts only because its worn by woman initially, follows that, the illustration below is also acceptable since it is also initially worn by men in the old old testament period. If this is not the case, why? Are we restricting the application of His word specifically the verse Deuteronomy 22:5 only for centuries ago but not the time before that.
Our God that we serve is the mightiest among ALL, He created heaven and earth, NONE is above Him, He is present EVERYWHERE in this world and He knows everything. This is how I know God. My question is, Is our UPC apparel modesty standard our God standard? If it is, therefore it should be the highest among ALL other modesty standard practiced in ALL the places in the WORLD, REGARDLESS of culture, non religious or religious practices and other practices. God modesty apparel standard which is our church standard is the highest among ALL other standard therefore, its absolute and its necessary for all men and woman in the WORLD to follow this standard of modesty to be holy in our God's eyes (the only ONE and TRUE God). If this is correct, I have a set questions that really confuses me. To emphasise properly my confusion please see my illustration.
On the left is an example of a muslim woman modesty standard, furthest to the left is the most conservative one. This is part of their religious practice and depending on where they are, their modesty standard varies from the lowest to highest. To some extreme, the men are not even allowed to look into the woman's eyes. Should the woman bare their hair or to some extreme to show the face of a woman in some conservative places can be lustful for men.
Above is the modesty standard of our church, a UPC woman. This is our God standard (the ONE TRUE GOD in the world) and is the highest among ALL modesty standard anywhere in the world regardless of non or religious practices, culture and any other practices. He is present everywhere, therefore it's applicable in all the places in the world (the highest, lowest, warmest, coldest, nearest, farthest places) as there is only ONE and True God.
TJ will impact BILLION of lives, therefore it means all human on earth. For me, I maybe wrong, please correct me if I am. But, however I look at it, the modesty standard of a muslim woman is higher than ours, I'm not saying to abominate God's Word, remember the verses did not elaborate more the extent of the modesty apparel God requires. God is sometime specific to extent that He even sometime mentioned the sizes/measurement but sometime He is not, in this case He is not specific based on my understanding. But, correct me If I'm wrong though and please enlightened me.
We are to impact BILLION of Lives, my question is, how are we going to explain to a muslim woman practicing her religion most modest standard that, her version of modesty is not of the one True God Standard, in fact did not even meet the True God standard which we believed and is consider the highest among ALL? With all honesty, in this case, I feel like talking to a tall person and is obliged to explain and make him understand that I am taller than Him. I'm sorry, I really need enlightenment on this, I don't mean to offend anybody.
To elaborate more, see my illustration on the different most modesty standard practice my different religion in different places.
Shown above is the modesty standard practiced by different religion, my questions is, which of these modesty are the highest standard to such that, when one goes to any place in the world as God is present everywhere will be look upon as modest by men? Meaning, if this woman happen to be in a place where men from the most less conservative to the most conservative, from the least secluded to the most secluded places (anywhere in short) will never look lustful, seductive, not modest to men. My answers is the Muslim woman, imagine any places you know that is very conservative and put this woman on that place, will she look lustful, seductive to men when you can't even see a skin or even the face of a woman? But, I maybe wrong, thats why I need enlightenment. Again, I don't mean to offend anybody.
Its like a paradox, a two statement that contradict each other. We believe that God is the highest among all, He is almighty therefore NOTHING is above Him. Then paradoxically, we say that our modesty standard is of God implying that it is therefore the highest among all yet, when we look on other modesty practices such as above, it seems like our modesty to some places is not modest enough. This statement disprove that God is above all thing. I hope you get what I'm trying to say. Should I be wrong, please enlightened me
Moreover, to say that because they have yet to hear the word of God that is why their modesty is like that go back to the point I made earlier that, there is none suppose other higher existing or past culture, practices and teaching religiously or non religiously other than our God because, it is from our God the mightiest and highest among all.
To say that, Its what you believe, its what you choose and we have a free will and we are not forcing it to you, it will be always your choice, if you don't want to follow, then its your choice is like acknowledging that my conviction (my deep belief-which I subject for correction) is also correct and what you believe is also correct. So now, we have two version of conviction that opposes each other. Which again contradict of what we believe about God, we say God is absolute, His word is perfect in harmony and with consistency, His word does not waver, yes means yes, no means no. So, when my conviction is acknowledged to be correct and yours is also correct. How exactly did we make Him absolute and does not waver when we have two version of truth or conviction that contradict each other? Since I look up God so much, I explained sensibly what my conviction is, and however I look at it, it make really sense to me. Now, I ask please if your version of truth is also correct it should also make sense, that is why I ask for enlightenment. I acknowledge that bible can be interpreted in many ways, but each interpretation should make sense literally, spiritually or even symbolically and should not contradict each other however the contradiction seems insignificant because, God's word is perfect. So, I ask to be enlightened with your version of truth in a sensible manner. If the answers is the same, its what you believe and what I believe and so let it be. With this answer, we are like arguing whereby, in front of us is a pencil. First, I explained with all my understanding that it is a pencil, I look at it, I tried it, I twist it, I search the meaning, every explanation I could gather, every sensible reasoning I laid down to make sense that it is a pencil, yet in spite of all my explanation, you believe that it is a ball pen, so I ask. Please enlightened me and make sense to me that it is a ball pen as you believe it to be. And your answered, Its what you choose to believe and what I believe, I'm not forcing you to believe it, we have a choice. I will consider this type of answer as not answered. Again, I don't mean to offend anybody I only ask for enlightenment.
To ask me back and say, what is your purpose brother of asking these question? My answer on this one is because it made me confused of how we look God character. We claim He is above ALL yet, by claiming that our modesty is from God disprove His character as there seem to be higher than our modesty standard.
To say that it's not an issue and we can follow their standard, in fact, even better is like yielding that their modesty standard is higher than our God modesty standard again, disproving that God is above ALL.
To say that, we are not to conform in the world and we are peculiar people doesn't mean we based our standard from the past and so adapt what was modest in the past. Is not God Omniscient-knows everything? Are we implying that God in terms of modesty issue did not for see that clothing will evolve through time and the modesty category will change over time? Or, God did not expect that humans will invent pants design for a woman that is modest to look at in today's time? And, though it may not be modest to look some centuries ago it doesn't mean its not modest in today's time, we can never live in the past right? It's like implying that God modesty standard was designed only from the beginning up to around late 1920's or 30's if I'm not mistaken whereby, during World War I, women wore their husbands' (suitably altered) trousers while they took on jobs previously assigned to men as men go to war. What was His word exactly?
To say that Bro, pray for it so that the understanding will come to you which I really did, I honestly prayed to God earnestly, seems like avoiding or diverting the question and I will consider it as not answered or cannot be answered. To say that, the Holy Ghost is not within me yet because I don't understand the way they understand is like implying that, those who understand these writing like my wife also have no Holy Ghost and that is judging.
All I ask to whoever read this is a sensible direct answers to my question. Any other indirect answer will be considered unanswered. Again, I'm not saying that I'm right, in fact I may be really wrong but if I am, please answer the question in a sensible, direct manner. Again, I don't mean to offend anybody.
Or, maybe it is the church preference standard only for the sake of unity and uniformity but not really God's standard which make a big difference because, if it is a church standard therefore subject to change depending on where you are, the culture, non religious or religious practices as long as it is modest to looked at on that particular place. For me, church standard and God standard has a big difference, one is imperfect and perfect, changeable and absolute, limited and no limit. I'm not saying we don't want to be united with the church, we can be united but, I don't think its right to impose the kind of modesty as a requirement for Godly Holiness because, it makes it absolute therefore cannot be change as it came from God. If a man is required to wear pants all the time, clean shaven all the time to meet church modesty standard, personally I may not able to meet that expectation likewise, if its a church modesty standard for a woman not to cut their hair, nor wear pants or anything that has slit in between the legs even if its for a woman and looks modest, then my wife might not able to meet the standard. But, if its God's standard therefore, a necessary requirement for Godly Holiness, however we resist, however we feel like complaining, however we don't like it, we will try our very best to please God but, please enlightened me with a sensible direct answer to my questions. Again, I don't mean to offend anybody
To add more clarity on what I'm trying to say, I can analogised it like this:
Suppose, I have an elder brother, our father went to an event that me and my brother is not aware of. Suddenly, my elder brother received an SMS from my father that we are invited to the occasion. So then, we dressed up, but my elder brother insist to wear coat, because our father say so. But, I don't want to wear it, I really don't want, for me, a long sleeve and a tie is enough but, he still insist that its what our father want us to wear. I check the SMS and the SMS say " you two are invited, dress code: formal" and did not elaborate more. I ask my elder brother, what you wear and what I wear are both formal. How can you insist that our father want to wear the type of formal wear like yours? Or, its your personal preference? To some, my version of formal wear maybe lower and to some maybe higher or just enough, but still meet the category of formality. But, should my father SMS is like this " you two are invited, dress code: formal with a coat". That, even if I don't like wearing it, I will have no choice but to comply. It is specific and absolute.
Likewise, in the same manner I ask, Is our modesty standard a church preference or it is what our Father said in terms of modesty requirement? Because when I read the verse, the verse did not elaborate the extent of modesty. Should it really be what God said in terms of modesty requirement, please enlightened me and I request to answer my questions in a sensible and direct manner. Again, I don't mean to offend anybody.
So now, you know, were we stand on this matter. I understand that, God is the one that place me in the internship position and I understand the obligation, I understand that I have to be in unity with the church. But, I also understand that, the church has to be in line with the word of God and I have no doubt that our church is in line with His word, this is why, I ask for enlightenment as for sure, our church have a sensible and direct answer to my questions. Forgive me if I'm lacking understanding, I don't want to be hypocrite that this does not bother me, it does really bother me and like a growing child who ask question to learn, I also am a growing child in His church yearning to learn, that is why I ask questions.
Subject: About the Hair
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. (I Corinthians 11:2-7, 9, 11-16 NKJV)
To start, before we quote the last verse which says " But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. (I Corinthians 11:16 NKJV)". I ask to be enlightened first what exactly is that custom the preceding verses is talking about.
Again, I'm not writing to impose or press on and be firm on my understanding. I'm writing so that I can express myself better therefore, explaining my understanding clearly not to be firm about it but for correction and enlightenment.
I would explain my understanding based on this parameters:
1.0 God's word is absolute and perfect therefore, we should not be able to find any loophole into it however it may seems small and seems irrelevant.
2.0 Their should be consistency of meaning and in harmony to each other, therefore, one meaning of a word cannot differ from the others.
3.0 His word does not waver, when he say yes, it means yes, when He says no, it means no.
4.0 We cannot add or subtract anything from His word.
5.0 God is Omniscient, He knows everything. If we analyzed, I think, sometimes we conveniently change the actual meaning of one word whenever we convert a word to other language, when in fact, we are actually just replacing the word with a different language but the meaning should not be different, take note, meaning is different compare to what the meaning could refer to. Say for instance, the greek word "katakaluptÅ" which means to cover up or to veil. Notice that the meaning is "to veil", veil here could refer to (not mean to) a lot of things, it could refer to hair, clothing, a cap or anything that will satisfy the meaning of "veil". Say like the word "transport", in tagalog it can me converted with exact the same meaning "sasakyan", "sasakyan" could refer to car, tricycle, bicycle, van or whatever. Or, "Puno" in english "trees", trees could refer to Narra, Oak or Pine. My point is, there is a difference between a meaning of a word and to which the meaning refer to. So, in the word veil, we say it refers to hair, how about the others to which the veil could refer to? Applying one and not being open on the possibility that it could refer to other things, may seem like implying that God may not know the other things that the meaning may refer to. Or, God prefer to refer this one than the other thing. Its like saying, "sasakyan" in english "transport" but God chooses to refer transport to be a car when, tricycle will even make more sense. Or, God don't know that there is another transport other than car and so, transport could only mean car. I'm not be belittling God, in fact, I look up at Him so much that we should be very careful in applying His characteristic.
6.0 The verses should be explain in a way that each verses are interdependent to each other. I don't think its right to interpret one verse and give it an spiritual meaning when, clearly it didn't mean spiritual. Like say this verse "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. (I Corinthians 11:4 NKJV)". We cannot say, head covered means Holy Ghost when clearly if you read the preceding and succeeding verses it means not spiritual. If its an individual verse, it maybe possible to interpret it spiritually. Its like when we read a paragraph, we cannot extract one sentence and expound the meaning of it ignoring its dependency from other sentences which, are also part of the paragraph. Nevertheless, in the example, if covering spiritually means Holy Ghost, that would imply that a man with holy ghost, dishonors his head which doesn't make sense already.
First, I wanted to expound what I was made to understand about the verses. So, the verse says
"Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. (I Corinthians 11:14-15 NKJV) ".
From this verse, I was made to understand that hair equates to covering, not long hair but hair. So, Hair=Covering, also, all the preceding verses whereby covered was mentioned also mean hair, (e.i. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered=hair, dishonors his head. (I Corinthians 11:4 NKJV)). This is according to what I was made to understand. Another is longhair in greek words its kom-ah'-o which means to let the hair grow or have long hair. Though, it didn't literally say uncut but since it say "let the hair grow" therefore it means just simply let it grow since cutting is not mentioned, the idea is like saying, "to let nail grow" since cutting is not mentioned just let it grow then, or to run or walk, but since stop is not mentioned just walk or run without stopping. So with this logic, Long hair now equates to uncut (Long Hair=Uncut). Earlier, I establish that one word meaning should be consistent. Therefore, the verses (I Corinthians 11:14-15 NKJV) can be written like this
" Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair=uncut hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair=uncut hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering."
Some say, the two "long hair" mentioned above have same meaning but different application. So the same meaning, therefore, should I replace the "long hair" for a man with an "uncut hair" as per below:
" Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has uncut hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has uncut hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering."
By reading the verse again replacing longhair with uncut as per above, how exactly does the application differ? I'm confused?
For me, it goes to say that, a man with uncut hair is dishonor to him. Therefore, a man is ought to cut his hair. But, to what extent does a man need to cut his hair to such that it is acceptable to God? Up to shoulder length? Cut to such that the back of the neck and face is not covered with hair or cut all the hair? The answer of this questions can be found on the this verse:
"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (I Corinthians 11:7 NKJV)"
Earlier, as per teaching, cover=hair. How then head covering equates to long hair? The greek word of head covering is "katakaluptÅ - 1) to cover up 2) to veil or cover one' s self. Though the meaning did not directly say long hair, the teaching say, veil mentioned refers to hair in which, actually could also refer to other type of covering, therefore, seems to imply that God prefer veil to refer as hair rather than other things that the veil could refer to, nevertheless, to veil or to cover up still doesn't equate to longhair. One may say, veil refers to long hair but the veil mentioned has no adjective before it (e.i. long veil or short veil), its like saying, a stick equates to long stick, cannot right. Therefore, veil if it refers to hair, simply refers to hair not long hair. In other words, the greek meaning did not help me make sense of head covering equates to long hair.
But then, someone give me a sensible explanation how head covering equates to long hair. The head according to teaching refers to part of body above the neck, obviously, the face, the ear, the skinhead which is covered by the hair. The hair is part of the body at the same time serves as covering of the skinhead. So the word is "cover his head" or "head covered" follows that, if a man hair is uncut to such that when he loose his hair will cover the face such as the illustration below is dishonor to him. The idea is simple, head=all part of body above neck, covered=hair. Therefore, head covered equates to minimum hair length to be considered as long hair.
But, up to what extent will a man need to cut his hair so that it is not dishonor to him? Will he need to cut it just to clearly exposing the face and to such that when its loose it will not cover the face? The answer from this when I ask is Yes. But wait, what does the hair really covers, which part of the head, is it not our skinhead? It is a covering mainly for the skinhead, we can cut to such that the hair if loosen will not cover the face still the skinhead is covered with hair . The verse says "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head". The requirement is NOT to cover the head. Since God is absolute, his word does not waver, yes means yes, no means no. Does this mean the a man ought to cut off his covering=hair to such that it's not covered anymore so as to satisfy His word as per illustrated on the left? With this covering=hair meaning, all other verses with head covered or head uncovered except for verse I Corinthians 11:14-15 will not make sense. Like say this verse
"For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. (I Corinthians 11:6 NKJV)"
If analyzed, it would say "For if a woman is not covered=no hair, let her be shorn (how can a woman compared to a head shaven woman when she already have no hair?. On top of that, if head covered=longhair as illustrated above, how does the woman would look like if she ought to cover her head then? When I ask these one time, it was like I was really wrong and was rebuked. But think about the need to be consistent in meaning and application of the meaning, we all acknowledged that Gods word should be in consistency and in harmony.
Moreover, even if we changed the meaning of a head to simply a part where the hair grows only (the skinhead), not covered will still mean no hair. With this head definition, head covering=long hair is not possible to make sense as short hair could also mean head covered, so long as there is a hair in the head, it can be considered as covered.
With this illustration, if covering equates to hair, which of this one is really covered and not covered? The teaching seems to imply the not covered means short hair. Remember, the word did not say not long hair rather its says not covered. So, how then not covered equates to short hair?This I need to be enlightened. I'm really, sorry, if I pose this kind of question. It is God's inspired word and I look God's word as absolute and does not waver, no means no, yes means yes. I don't want to elaborate this anymore as I think you get what I'm trying to say. But, should I be wrong on this, or maybe there is other sensible explanation with consistency of meaning and in harmony, please enlightened me. Again, I don't main to offend anybody.
I was ask one time, Bro. if "not covered means "no hair" since hair is naturally growing, then, what for God created the hair for what purpose then? Now, I have an answer, If all the explanation as per above however it may seem non sense, however there seem to be no consistency in meaning is still correct, which I request for enlightenment. Then my answer is since covering=hair, therefore, hair is for a woman covering her head (anything above the neck) and longhair=uncut is a symbol that she allows herself to be under the authority of man. But, for a man, since he is ought not to cover, it is therefore need to be cut off to such that the head is not covered so that it will not dishonor his head which is christ. With these answer, it seemingly make sense if applied to a woman but if the word if applied to a man, it doesn't make sense. Remember, God's word is absolute and does not waver, yes means yes, no means no.
For information, The first recorded instance of veiling for women is recorded in an Assyrian legal text from the 13th century BC, which restricted its use to noble women and forbade prostitutes and common women from adopting it. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil). Veiling is some religious practices is considered part of their modesty standard, like say in jewish, the veiling of women’s hair is part of Jewish laws on modesty (Hebr. tzniuth). A woman’s hair is considered ervah, or erotic stimulus, which must therefore be covered just as other ervah parts of a woman’s body must also be covered. In addition, Jewish law also requires that “a married woman may not appear in public with her hair uncovered. She is required to wear a head-covering that hides all her hair from view. It is proper to ensure that no hair protrudes from it. (http://veil.unc.edu/religions/judaism/). Jewish laws covers in detail our old testament which is part of the bible. Its implies therefore that veiling is practiced by God's people since then.
The illustration shows how I understand the verse. The explanation on the angel was based on the last verse mentioned in I Corinthians 11:10 "because of the angel" which I was enlightened in one of the church preaching of the word. Should my understanding be wrong, please enlightened me with a sensible explanation. Again, I'm not holding firm on what I understand, all I request is a sensible, harmonious with consistency explanation.
Lastly, I really believe that God is above and beyond reasons, since reasoning is defined to be the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way then, God should always make sense and even beyond it, not the least or the absence of it. Of course, there are God's words that seems like doesn't make sense but, all means or parameters of sensible reasoning used by man should first be tried. If it still does't makes sense and however man uses all means of logical thinking but still cannot prove it, then that proves that God is above and beyond reason not the least or absence of it. One example is the creation story, however man prove that its not true, that we came from a monkey or whatever that earth is billion of years old. The simple truth is, no man is alive to prove it, no man can go back in the past, everything out there is a theory, however it make sense to a man still is a theory. But, our God lives forever which therefore proves that He is the only witness in the creation. No man can prove but Him. I'm not trying to disprove Him, it just that, some of His words are not elaborated or specific or did not provide more explanation, It is we (man) that sometime give the elaboration. I'm not saying that we cannot do that, but if we do, it should make sense in every meaning available and to what those meaning could refer to, consistent and no contradiction however it may seem small and irrelevant as His word is perfect.
I look up God so much such that He is above ALL and cannot be fathom by merely a human brain. I know my understanding is limited, though its limited, my understanding that I brought out here in this writing seems really make sense to me. But, with this limited understanding I cannot be above what the church understand, that's why I know that I'm really wrong and I humbly ask for a sensible enlightenment.
Thank you and God bless us all.
Sincerely,
Bro. Sherwin
No comments:
Post a Comment