DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Didn't I read something recently about a "soul patch" and "girly men"???
Earrings on Men
- Thread starter bookslover
- Start date
- Status
Didn't I read something recently about a "soul patch" and "girly men"???
raekwon
Puritan Board Junior
A true external sign of holiness, if there ever was one.
Man, these culture references keep sending me to Google. I just don't get out much, I guess. I thought a Puritan soul patch might have some connection to Dr. Owen being refered to as a physician of the soul--some sort of bandaid.
BTW, I found a picture of me from about 20 years ago. I had forgotten how much I used to obsess about fashion:
21st Century Calvinist
Puritan Board Junior
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
And, even worse than earrings - that silver nose piercing thingee that makes it look like you've got silver snot dripping out of your nose.
What is wrong with these people?
What is wrong with these people?
Gesetveemet
Puritan Board Sophomore
in my opinion men should give earrings not wear them.
Also
I know a man that has eight earrings in one ear and when he is not wearing them he uses his ear to strain spaghetti.
Also
I know a man that has eight earrings in one ear and when he is not wearing them he uses his ear to strain spaghetti.
Ask Dennis Rodman. I don't think so.
I had four at this time. (2002) I still have the holes but I don't wear them any longer. I outgrew the desire to wear them. I rather like getting older and looking and acting my age.
Great picture, Randy. Did you have tatooes to go with the earrings?
No Tatoos. I thought the Bible forbid them along with cutting ones self for the dead.
When was the last time you saw a pic of R. L. Dabney or B. H. Carroll? Old age and long beards just look so awesome. Who needs earrings? Gray hair and long beards is where it is at.
Reepicheep
Puritan Board Freshman
Locke Peterseim of ESPN said it well regarding soul patches:
The soul patch is the "I meant to do that" of facial hair. Unlike a Grizzly Adams/Ted Kaczynski full-on beard, the soul patch doesn't require a lot of scratching or checking for ticks. And unlike geometrically correct goatees, it doesn't say, "I'm on Satan's team." Instead, a soul patch says things like, "I'm cool" or "I'm a little rebellious" or "I'm sensitive" or "I'm a little hung up on myself" or "I can grow hair right there on that spot right below my lip, and some of my friends can't."
The soul patch is the "I meant to do that" of facial hair. Unlike a Grizzly Adams/Ted Kaczynski full-on beard, the soul patch doesn't require a lot of scratching or checking for ticks. And unlike geometrically correct goatees, it doesn't say, "I'm on Satan's team." Instead, a soul patch says things like, "I'm cool" or "I'm a little rebellious" or "I'm sensitive" or "I'm a little hung up on myself" or "I can grow hair right there on that spot right below my lip, and some of my friends can't."
BobVigneault
Bawberator
Do they have to be pierced earrings? I love to rummage through mother's clip ons and wear some of hers when I just want to feel pretty. I'm so grateful that America got feminized. I can cry, wear a shoulder bag, make up, clip ons, gold chains and evening gowns.
Ok, of course I was joking. I don't wear clip ons.
Ok, of course I was joking. I don't wear clip ons.
Sonoftheday
Puritan Board Sophomore
Never have nor ever will have an earring. However in time of depression during my teen years I pierced my own nipple, still have a scar to prove it.
BTW, I found a picture of me from about 20 years ago. I had forgotten how much I used to obsess about fashion:
Now that was funny!
Reepicheep
Puritan Board Freshman
Guess which one is Richard Baxter and which one is me...
Paul recommend we see what Uncle Bawb thought so I went to check it out.
I thought it was stated in a goodly way.
Btw Bawb, I know you really don't do the clip on thing but what is your favorite colored purse. And is it more of a hand bag or what?
I thought it was stated in a goodly way.
Btw Bawb, I know you really don't do the clip on thing but what is your favorite colored purse. And is it more of a hand bag or what?
"But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh."
I believe the argument against tatoos is an intrinsic argument from the many verses condemning the worship of the creature and boastful pride. Getting a tatoo is a way of saying "Hey, look at me, I'm tough, I'm cool." It is an encouragement to glory in the flesh and not in the Lord.
Furthermore, they have long been associated with the rebellious and decadent. Even tatoo 'artists?" are upset now because tatoos are losing their counter culture stigma.
It is taking a mark upon your body by which you are trying to show our allegiance to something or communicate something about yourselve that you think is important. We must ask, what are we trying to communicate, what are we lacking, are we compensating for something? Tatoos send a variety of messages that may be beyond your ability to control.
In my humble opinion, tatoos are a dirty, filthy practice and I believe a slap in the face to God who has given us his mark, the Holy Spirit and who has given us some of his own INVISIBLE attributes. Futhermore, piercings on men are an acquiescence to the feminization of America. My advice: DON'T DO IT!
Real men don't need tatoos to prove they are tough; they don't need anything pierced to prove they can endure pain. Let God be the one you glory in, let God be the defender of your reputation. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of you mind.
raekwon
Puritan Board Junior
Pr. Felich, you may well just be my favorite new PB'er.
raekwon
Puritan Board Junior
Paul recommend we see what Uncle Bawb thought so I went to check it out.
I thought it was stated in a goodly way.
Btw Bawb, I know you really don't do the clip on thing but what is your favorite colored purse. And is it more of a hand bag or what?
"But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh."
I believe the argument against tatoos is an intrinsic argument from the many verses condemning the worship of the creature and boastful pride. Getting a tatoo is a way of saying "Hey, look at me, I'm tough, I'm cool." It is an encouragement to glory in the flesh and not in the Lord.
Furthermore, they have long been associated with the rebellious and decadent. Even tatoo 'artists?" are upset now because tatoos are losing their counter culture stigma.
It is taking a mark upon your body by which you are trying to show our allegiance to something or communicate something about yourselve that you think is important. We must ask, what are we trying to communicate, what are we lacking, are we compensating for something? Tatoos send a variety of messages that may be beyond your ability to control.
In my humble opinion, tatoos are a dirty, filthy practice and I believe a slap in the face to God who has given us his mark, the Holy Spirit and who has given us some of his own INVISIBLE attributes. Futhermore, piercings on men are an acquiescence to the feminization of America. My advice: DON'T DO IT!
Real men don't need tatoos to prove they are tough; they don't need anything pierced to prove they can endure pain. Let God be the one you glory in, let God be the defender of your reputation. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of you mind.
Stated well indeed. There are some assumptions one has to make that won't be true for some guys, but, it's a respectable position.
Reepicheep
Puritan Board Freshman
Rae, I'm honored. You don't tell that to all the newbies do you?
Southern Presbyterian
Puritan Board Doctor
If my beard didn't curl up like a "Mike Brady perm", I'd be right there with you, brother. 
It's the "acting your age" part that gets me. I've been told that for almost as long as I can remember. So just which "age" am I supposed to "act"... 12... 16... 18... 25... 35... 45?
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
You are missing the mustache. (and the cool hat...)
nicnap
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
"Plus, I would not base a practice after the pattern of an idolustrous and stiff necked people." (This was a post 52 by Pilgrim's Progeny)
Sorry...didn't know how to work the quote thing to narrow that down...but even people without earrings and without tattoos and who have nicely trimmed hair and dress to a T in a suit and tie can be stiff-necked and idolatrous. Maybe we should all go to togas and shaved heads....then we wouldn't be dressed as the idolaters...wait; the heart is an idol factory, and we are all stiff-necked...hmmmmm.
Sorry...didn't know how to work the quote thing to narrow that down...but even people without earrings and without tattoos and who have nicely trimmed hair and dress to a T in a suit and tie can be stiff-necked and idolatrous. Maybe we should all go to togas and shaved heads....then we wouldn't be dressed as the idolaters...wait; the heart is an idol factory, and we are all stiff-necked...hmmmmm.
Last edited:
Pilgrim's Progeny
Puritan Board Sophomore
The point I was making was that just because we see a certain practice by God's people, that does not make it right, especially if the people accompanying the practice are caught up in idolatry. I was pointing out that that was not the best context.
Practice does not govern principle, principle governs practice. I was not making a case for or against. I merely believe that that was not very solid ground to erect a principle.
I think the main thing is that we let our adornment be inward, much as Peter instructed the women, should it be no less for us men:
Everything else aside, it is the heart that matters, for out of the heart flow the issues of life.
reformedman
Puritan Board Freshman
I believe more references to jewelry can be found attributed to women in the bible than to men. Jewelry just seems natural to me, to be implied as a women's thing than to men because that's what it seems to me biblically speaking. Few examples:
1Tim 2:9
1Pet 3:3
Notice that in just the two above examples, the women were being directed not the men.
The verse doesn't say that it is wrong for women to wear them at all, but does imply that during worship and/or praise setting, they were the ones not to wear them.(v.12)
Since men weren't addressed it seems to me that men did not wear them, that they were acceptable (and exclusively) WOMEN'S ATTIRE. Therefore, for men to wear what was once (exclusively in my opinion)women's attire in history, today, and use the reasoning that it is now acceptable men's attire, is a bit weak.
It is weak because you can then use this kind of reasoning for just about anything. For example, in American culture, lipstick is acceptable (and exclusively so) for women. If all the men of the west-coast of the United States start using lipstick, and people start to say, “There is no prohibition in the bible”, well then yes It’s true you can’t find it explicitly opposed to biblical orthopraxy. All you can use against it would be that:
---men are not to dress as women
---lipstick is acceptable exclusively for women
---therefore men may not use it.
I think that the problem here is that between the time of the 2nd and 3rd points, there has not been enough of a questioning about the 1st point that it has become normal culture today.
To conclude, the same line of logical reasoning can be found in men’s earings;
---men are not to dress as women
---earings is acceptable exclusively for women
---therefore men may not use it.
If no one says anything about men wearing lipstick long enough, it will become acceptable and the bible will not be consulted on the verse, “men are not to dress as women”.
I feel that it is never too late for Christians to always reform and go to the meaning behind the bible. I don't claim to know it perfectly, I only say that this is what the bible seems to indicate to me. I may be wrong, but it is the simplest reading that I see. Even if our culture has been wrong for the past 50 years, I believe men should go to the original intent.
Please excuse my poor English.
1Tim 2:9
1Pet 3:3
Notice that in just the two above examples, the women were being directed not the men.
The verse doesn't say that it is wrong for women to wear them at all, but does imply that during worship and/or praise setting, they were the ones not to wear them.(v.12)
Since men weren't addressed it seems to me that men did not wear them, that they were acceptable (and exclusively) WOMEN'S ATTIRE. Therefore, for men to wear what was once (exclusively in my opinion)women's attire in history, today, and use the reasoning that it is now acceptable men's attire, is a bit weak.
It is weak because you can then use this kind of reasoning for just about anything. For example, in American culture, lipstick is acceptable (and exclusively so) for women. If all the men of the west-coast of the United States start using lipstick, and people start to say, “There is no prohibition in the bible”, well then yes It’s true you can’t find it explicitly opposed to biblical orthopraxy. All you can use against it would be that:
---men are not to dress as women
---lipstick is acceptable exclusively for women
---therefore men may not use it.
I think that the problem here is that between the time of the 2nd and 3rd points, there has not been enough of a questioning about the 1st point that it has become normal culture today.
To conclude, the same line of logical reasoning can be found in men’s earings;
---men are not to dress as women
---earings is acceptable exclusively for women
---therefore men may not use it.
If no one says anything about men wearing lipstick long enough, it will become acceptable and the bible will not be consulted on the verse, “men are not to dress as women”.
I feel that it is never too late for Christians to always reform and go to the meaning behind the bible. I don't claim to know it perfectly, I only say that this is what the bible seems to indicate to me. I may be wrong, but it is the simplest reading that I see. Even if our culture has been wrong for the past 50 years, I believe men should go to the original intent.
Please excuse my poor English.
news reporters wear cosmetics. Even the men wear lipstick and blush, etc, to appear more healthy and alive as they render the news. Sometimes they overdo it and it is visible, but in most cases, it does improve their appearance.
I would not classify this as transvestitism or putting on women's apparel.
So here is one case in which I give a thumbs up for makeup on men.
I would not classify this as transvestitism or putting on women's apparel.
So here is one case in which I give a thumbs up for makeup on men.
regener8ed
Puritan Board Freshman
It is not sinful for men to wear earrings. I dont wear them, but unless someone can show that it is sinful via scripture, then please keep your cultural observations to yourself and don't judge others as if they were committing sin. The most evil men in the world wear three piece suits, should we all stop wearing them?
Pilgrim's Progeny
Puritan Board Sophomore
Who said anything about judging? just discussing, right?
ColdSilverMoon
Puritan Board Senior
The flaw in this logic is the second line. By whose standard are earrings exclusively for women? Maybe at certain times or certain cultures, but modern American culture isn't one of those. And there is no Biblical support for the notion that earrings are for women only. So I see no reason to believe earrings are exclusively for women, other than individual opinion. Therefore, I so no reason why men shouldn't wear them.
- Status
