1. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    13 Jul '07 23:15
    I was perusing Scripture and came upon the following:

    ...Any man who prays or propehsies with his head covered brings shame
    upon his head. But a woman who prays or prophesies with her head
    unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one in the same thing as
    if she had had her head shaved...Judge for yourselves: is it proper for
    a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself
    teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him, whereas
    if a woman has long hair it is her glory, because long hair has been given
    [her] for a covering?
    But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we
    do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God. (I Cor 11:4-5, 13-16)

    Confer with the whole passage to get the full context.

    So, what do we think of this? St Paul is appealling to 'nature' in his
    argument, that it is natural that man ought not have his head covered
    and woman ought to when praying, that this is parcel to being involved
    in the 'churches of God.'

    St Paul was writing in his time, of course. But, as 'Divine Revelation,' his
    appeal to what is natural comes with greater authority. After all, if he is
    speaking as mere conduit of 'God's Divine Will,' then the 'nature' of things
    is as permanent as God is. It's not merely a local custom, but the ineffable
    word of God.

    So, how do Biblical literalists deal with such an issue? I'm certain I've
    seldom seen women with covered heads in their churches. And what of
    men like myself who have a ponytail? St Paul would have me believe
    that his is a 'natural disgrace.'

    What do Biblical literalists have to say about this?

    Nemesio
  2. Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    13 Jul '07 23:21
    Paul is speaking as a man, and as you say, in his time and culture. It is not a sin as far as God is concerned....that is my reading of it....
  3. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    13 Jul '07 23:36
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    I was perusing Scripture and came upon the following:

    ...Any man who prays or propehsies with his head covered brings shame
    upon his head. But a woman who prays or prophesies with her head
    unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one in the same thing as
    if she had had her head shaved...Judge for yourselves: is it proper for
    a woman to pray to ...[text shortened]... al disgrace.'

    What do Biblical literalists have to say about this?

    Nemesio
    What is your definition of a Biblical literalist? I am a Biblical literalist in terms of identifying the Bible as the inspired word of God. However, does this mean that such teachings apply to this modern day society? Does it mean that they use proper punctuation and/or wording? Does it mean that what is being said applies for everyone throughout time instead of a particular generation? If so, then no, I am not a Biblical literalist. For example, I do not believe that one needs to sacrifice animals in this present day, however, at one time there was a place for that. In terms of Paul, he said something to the effect that to do that which you know will offend you brother, do not do it. Perhaps this teaching was given along similar guidlines. I think this more than likely.
  4. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    14 Jul '07 00:02
    Originally posted by whodey
    What is your definition of a Biblical literalist? I am a Biblical literalist in terms of identifying the Bible as the inspired word of God. However, does this mean that such teachings apply to this modern day society? Does it mean that they use proper punctuation and/or wording? Does it mean that what is being said applies for everyone throughout time ins ...[text shortened]... do it. Perhaps this teaching was given along similar guidlines. I think this more than likely.
    St Paul refers explicitly to 'nature.' If you are willing to be flexible on this teaching which comes 'from God,' then why wouldn't you be willing
    to let homosexuals marry in your church, say? After all, there can be
    no doubt that the way in which homoeroticism was expressed in the
    first century has nothing to do with the way in which two men or two women
    wish to share their lives together.

    How do you judge which teachings are the ones you can ignore as the
    product of the time and which ones are eternal?

    Nemesio
  5. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    14 Jul '07 00:02
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    Paul is speaking as a man, and as you say, in his time and culture. It is not a sin as far as God is concerned....that is my reading of it....
    So this passage of Scripture is not inspired?

    Nemesio
  6. tinyurl.com/ywohm
    Joined
    01 May '07
    Moves
    27860
    14 Jul '07 00:10
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    I was perusing Scripture and came upon the following:

    ...Any man who prays or propehsies with his head covered brings shame
    upon his head. But a woman who prays or prophesies with her head
    unveiled brings shame upon her head, for it is one in the same thing as
    if she had had her head shaved...Judge for yourselves: is it proper for
    a woman to pray to ...[text shortened]... al disgrace.'

    What do Biblical literalists have to say about this?

    Nemesio
    St. Paul is confusing "nature" with local custom. He probably would have thought Sikh men were doubly sinful. I have lived in places where it is considered "natural" to wear fake cheese on your head.
  7. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    14 Jul '07 00:15
    Originally posted by pawnhandler
    St. Paul is confusing "nature" with local custom.
    A Biblical literalist could not possibly believe that St Paul could be confused.
    'A man should not cover his head...because he is the image of God,'
    he says, and that a woman should cover her head 'because of the angels.
    (verses 7 and 10 respectively).

    He is certainly speaking with authority, or how else could he testify
    regarding the angels?

    Nemesio
  8. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    14 Jul '07 03:56
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    St Paul refers explicitly to 'nature.' If you are willing to be flexible on this teaching which comes 'from God,' then why wouldn't you be willing
    to let homosexuals marry in your church, say? After all, there can be
    no doubt that the way in which homoeroticism was expressed in the
    first century has nothing to do with the way in which two men or two wo ...[text shortened]... the ones you can ignore as the
    product of the time and which ones are eternal?

    Nemesio
    What I am talking about are societal customs, not sexual conduct. There is within the Bible a definable and consistent expectation for sexual conduct for men and women of God in both the NT and OT. Like it or hate it, it is what it is and it has consistantly transended any and all cultures that it has encountered.
  9. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    14 Jul '07 04:292 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    What I am talking about are societal customs, not sexual conduct. There is within the Bible a definable and consistent expectation for sexual conduct for men and women of God in both the NT and OT. Like it or hate it, it is what it is and it has consistantly transended any and all cultures that it has encountered.
    Sexual conduct is inextricable from societal custom. Homoerotic expression was a common and
    fully acceptable part of Greek society, for example. It is also found in some Native American cultures.
    Polygamy, too, is acceptable in many cultures. Sexual mores are defined by culture.

    Similarly, the attitudes about a woman's hair has also been an enduring issue; many Moslem cultures
    and Orthodox Jewish cultures have severe restrictions on when a woman can expose her hair. It's a
    strong symbol of femininity and sexuality, a concept that is as long-enduring as you think homoerotic
    disdain is.

    Again, I'm only iterating what St Paul said in Divine Scripture: 'Does not nature itself...' he says.
    Nature, he says, or phusis (the root of 'physics'😉. Does the essential 'nature' of man- or womankind
    change? I think not. The 'churches of God' will not abide with the customs of the 'contentious' or
    'argumentative,' he says.

    The Hebrew Scriptures makes no comment about permissiveness in hair style. There is nothing to
    override the imperative that St Paul clearly makes on behalf of God (after all, it is Divine Revelation).

    How do you explain ignoring this? Because it is 'societal?' A woman's place in the church is also
    'societal.' Calling an individual 'father' is societal. Sexual expression is 'societal.'

    Nemesio
  10. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    14 Jul '07 12:391 edit
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    Sexual conduct is inextricable from societal custom. Homoerotic expression was a common and
    fully acceptable part of Greek society, for example. It is also found in some Native American cultures.
    Polygamy, too, is acceptable in many cultures. Sexual mores are defined by culture.

    Similarly, the attitudes about a woman's hair has also been an endur idual 'father' is societal. Sexual expression is 'societal.'

    Nemesio
    So basically every teaching in the Bible in regards to morality is "societal"? Is this what you are saying? God has not really commanded us to do anything. In fact, he could really care less what we do in regards to obeying his laws just so long as we fit societal norms. Is this what you are saying? You could even say that killing is societal. For example, if you lived in Nazi Germany the thing to do was to kill Jews and/or persecute Jews. Why stop at sexual conduct and include murder?

    These topics differ greatly from how one wears their hair or whether or not wearing a hat is acceptable. If you can't see the difference then I doubt there is anything I can say to you to sway you.
  11. tinyurl.com/ywohm
    Joined
    01 May '07
    Moves
    27860
    14 Jul '07 15:03
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    A Biblical literalist could not possibly believe that St Paul could be confused.
    'A man should not cover his head...because he is the image of God,'
    he says, and that a woman should cover her head 'because of the angels.
    (verses 7 and 10 respectively).

    He is certainly speaking with authority, or how else could he testify
    regarding the angels?

    Nemesio
    If they have not done this (below), can people still claim to be Bible literalists? After all, these words didn't come from Paul but Jesus himself.

    Luke 18:22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
  12. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    14 Jul '07 15:56
    Originally posted by whodey
    So basically every teaching in the Bible in regards to morality is "societal"? Is this what you are saying?

    No. Many teachings in the Bible speak about rights.

    In fact, he could really care less what we do in regards to obeying his laws just so long as we fit societal norms.

    No. This is what you're saying. St Paul gave an explicit admonition for men to have short,
    uncovered hair and for women to have long, covered hair. You were the one who said that it was
    merely a societal thing.

    Why stop at sexual conduct and include murder?

    Well, murder isn't societal. Unlike your claim earlier (that sexual mores were consistent in all times
    and places), murder within one's propinquity group has always been frowned upon. That having been
    said, Israel didn't consider the Midianites as part of their propinquity group, just like the Nazis didn't
    consider the Jews as part of their group. Both erred as far as I'm concerned by not taking a sufficiently
    broad understanding of group.

    These topics differ greatly from how one wears their hair or whether or not wearing a hat is acceptable. If you can't see the difference then I doubt there is anything I can say to you to sway you.

    God's command through revealed Scripture seems to be something one ought not to quarrel with, no?
    St Paul is unequivocal. I just find it amusing beyond measure that you feel comfortable ignoring the
    parts of Scripture that you happen to find trivial or driven by a particular societal perspective, but
    frown upon other people who do the same thing on other topics.

    Nemesio
  13. Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    14 Jul '07 16:06
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    So this passage of Scripture is not inspired?

    Nemesio
    Good question. I don't know. I know 2Tim.3:16 says all scripture, but there are verses where Paul says, for example....

    1 Cor 7:5-6
    5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
    6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment.
    (NKJ)

    2 Cor 8:8
    8 I speak not by commandment, but I am testing the sincerity of your love by the diligence of others.
    (NKJ)

    So I am not certain at all about this. You raise a very interesting topic.
  14. Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    14 Jul '07 16:171 edit
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    So this passage of Scripture is not inspired?

    Nemesio
    After thinking a little bit, I wonder if it would be inspired in that God is giving some leeway here. For example, I don't think God gives a hoot if I use Colgate or Crest toothpaste. I am also aware that Paul was up against a culture with strange traditions. The Pharisee's had gone to the extreme interpreting the law of God and completely missed the heart of God.
  15. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    14 Jul '07 16:33
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    Originally posted by whodey
    [b]So basically every teaching in the Bible in regards to morality is "societal"? Is this what you are saying?


    No. Many teachings in the Bible speak about rights.
    So what is the difference between saying that a certain act is moral and saying that you have the "right" to do a certain act?
Back to Top