For any man to pray or to prophesy with his head covered shows disrespect for his head.Read on for more instructions for women, including when to keep quiet, a woman's position with respect to her husband and the remote control, and who gets to be boss.
And for a woman to pray or prophecy with her head uncovered shows disrespect for her head.
It is exactly the same as if she had her hair shaved off.
Indeed, if a woman does go without a veil, she should have her hair cut off too.
1 Corinthians, 11:3-7
Remember now, this is the word of God. If you believe in your God then God gets to be your god, not you -- you don't get to pick and choose; you must believe every word.
RELATED: Religion, Nonsense, Ethics
5 comments:
That sounds suspiciously like The Will O' Allah. Don't upset your readers by sitting in their comfort zone like that.
Are your readers familiar with Deuteronomy Chapter 23 verse 1.
"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD."
This is a good debate opener to use with religious doorsteppers. I have read that papal electives are inspected to ensure that they meet the implied "completeness" requirement (a.k.a. testiculos habet).
Extract from
Hair and Headship,
by Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr.
11:13. This section begins with an unusual expression: judge for yourselves. By these words Paul did not encourage the Corinthians to ignore his instructions. Rather, he meant that they should not blindly obey his directives. There were to think through the issue. Paul said this because he was convinced that the believers in Corinth had the ability to think properly on this issue (see 11:2). He hoped that they would reason through issues with him and see how he came to his conclusions. In fact, since this was an area in which he knew the church was following his instructions (11:2), he probably expected the majority of his readers to agree with his position. His direction that they judge for themselves may have been a rhetorical nudge to get the Corinthians to compare notes with one another. Paul may have wanted this statement to begin a dialogue between the Corinthians so that the majority would influence the dissenters in a positive way.
Paul put the matter to them plainly, asking if it were proper for women to pray in public worship with their heads uncovered. By stating the question in terms of propriety, Paul avoided speaking directly of sin. Though some improprieties are also sin, the two are not so closely related that one absolutely must refrain from all impropriety (compare Matt. 3:15; Eph. 5:3; 1 Tim. 2:10; Tit. 2:1; Heb. 2:10; 7:26). Paul consciously chose to argue from what was appropriate rather than from what was righteous.
Contrary to your thesis, the Christian faith is NOT a matter of rules and regulations (notwithstanding the all too human tendency to create rules for oneself). Nor is it an exercise in abrogating the intellect (notwithstanding the idiocy of charismatic televangelists).
PS: Christianity needs smart atheists to keep it honest.
Churchill once quipped: “I have always benefited from criticism and have never suffered from the lack thereof.”
Good spin, Peasant, but I think not:
"11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."
That sure sounds like rules and regulations to me. "Keep the ordinances..." Yes Sir!!
* * *
"Judge in yourelves: ... "
You can't ignore the colon, which specifically refers to the question of whether it's comely for a women to pray uncovered, and clearly the judgement is required: "No!"
See:
11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
* * *
Nonsense, huh?
As Penn from Penn & Teller says: "Oh, look at this one: 'Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?' OK, well, it's right about that one."
:-)
Post a Comment