Hair and Prayer

Originally posted by whodey
Perhaps the society at large had beliefs about angels that Paul wished not to counter in order to avoid disputes.

You're supporting the idea that St Paul rearticulated things that weren't true just to avoid disputes?
Does this sound like St Paul to you? Did he back away from the truth, ever?

Nemesio

Originally posted by whodey
Indeed. There is no arguement here. However, silence about an issue also speaks volumes in regards to the importance of the issue.

So masturbation is an even smaller issue, since it isn't addressed anywhere in Mosaic Law or in the
Christian Scriptures?

Sure, it's a small issue, but we have only one perspective: St Paul's. And yet you don't adhere to it.
You acknowledge that St Paul's perspective may have been ephemeral, relating only to the society
in which he lived.

Why can't you acknowledge the same thing for homosexuality?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
We're getting off the topic, but I'll play ball if you start answering questions directly.

...

Before I answer, I need to clarify something: Do you recognize state-sanctioned marriages as sufficient
for morally permissible sexual exchange?

Nemesio

Whodey?

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

Frankly, I don't get it. I have studied Judaism and have therefore thought the wearing of Kippas or having men cover their heads is a logical thing to do. So I definitely object to whoever said that about "covered heads bring shame."

Originally posted by Nemesio
You're supporting the idea that St Paul rearticulated things that weren't true just to avoid disputes?
Does this sound like St Paul to you? Did he back away from the truth, ever?

Nemesio

No, I am referencing a sentiment expressed by Paul in the exact same book that the hair scriptures appear in which is 1 Corinthians 8:13.

"Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world stands, lest I make my brother to offend."

So here we see Paul not standing up and saying the truth which is that eating meat is "OK" in the eyes of God so they should get over themselves and enjoy eating meat.

Originally posted by Nemesio
So masturbation is an even smaller issue, since it isn't addressed anywhere in Mosaic Law or in the
Christian Scriptures?

Sure, it's a small issue, but we have only one perspective: St Paul's. And yet you don't adhere to it.
You acknowledge that St Paul's perspective may have been ephemeral, relating only to the society
in which he lived.

Why can't you acknowledge the same thing for homosexuality?

Nemesio

Well to be honest, masterbation is a smaller issue for some than for others. It is no reason to feel bad about yourself, however. 😛

Originally posted by Nemesio
Whodey?

Nemesio!

Originally posted by Nemesio
We're getting off the topic, but I'll play ball if you start answering questions directly.

First of all, the reasons for the extreme examples are to demonstrate that the 'marriage' idea is not
always a necessary requirement for morally permissible sexual exchange. Unless you dispute those
examples, then you agree with that statement.

Before I ...[text shortened]... tate-sanctioned marriages as sufficient
for morally permissible sexual exchange?

Nemesio

Morality is dervied from a percieved higher authority. This is how we are wired. Therefore, what I find to be moral depends in large part to what or who I look up to as being a higher authority. If one were to not believe in God, the state fills the role to a large extent. For those of faith, however, God superceedes the state on issues of morality.

As a Christian I am commanded to obey the laws of the land so long as they do not conflict with divine laws given to me by God. So when it comes to marriage and sex, I will defer to what God says regarding the issue. Therefore, the state could sanction 5 men, 7 women, and 8 sheep getting married but I could really care less. Then again, if the state sanctioned a man and a women to be wed as outlined in scripture, I would embrace it because it is in line with God's views on the matter.

Originally posted by whodey
No, I am referencing a sentiment expressed by Paul in the exact same book that the hair scriptures appear in which is 1 Corinthians 8:13.

"Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world stands, lest I make my brother to offend."

So here we see Paul not standing up and saying the truth which is that eating meat is "OK" in the eyes of God so they should get over themselves and enjoy eating meat.

That's right! He does. However, he does no such thing for hairstyle, saying that the deviant hairstyles
will not be found in the church of God. That is, whereas he is unequivocally clear about flexibility
of meat-eating, but that one should refrain from doing what one can when it offends, he is similarly
clear about hairstyles: it is unnatural for men to have long hair or women to have short hair, and
that a woman shall not pray with her head uncovered because of the angels.

Do you see how this is different?

Nemesio

Originally posted by whodey
Well to be honest, masterbation is a smaller issue for some than for others. It is no reason to feel bad about yourself, however. 😛

I'll ask again: Is masturbation less of a sin than having a deviant hairstyle, since it is mentioned with
even less directness in Judeo-Christian literature?

Nemesio

Originally posted by whodey
Morality is dervied from a percieved higher authority. This is how we are wired. Therefore, what I find to be moral depends in large part to what or who I look up to as being a higher authority. If one were to not believe in God, the state fills the role to a large extent. For those of faith, however, God superceedes the state on issues of morality.

Right. So if you look up to a God who thinks that homoeroticism is morally permissible, then you
will have no objection to it regardless of the State's opinion. Glad we got that settled.

As a Christian I am commanded to obey the laws of the land so long as they do not conflict with divine laws given to me by God. So when it comes to marriage and sex, I will defer to what God says regarding the issue. Therefore, the state could sanction 5 men, 7 women, and 8 sheep getting married but I could really care less. Then again, if the state sanctioned a man and a women to be wed as outlined in scripture, I would embrace it because it is in line with God's views on the matter.

This wasn't my question, of course. My question was if a man and woman get married by some sort
of secular State contract, do you recognize this? What happens if they get married through some sort
of legal pact but don't involve the State? What about if they make a verbal agreement in good faith
to commit to each other until death, but don't involve the State or lawyers?

What are your criteria for what constitutes an environment for permissible sexual exchange between
a man and a woman?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
That's right! He does. However, he does no such thing for hairstyle, saying that the deviant hairstyles
will not be found in the church of God. That is, whereas he is unequivocally clear about flexibility
of meat-eating, but that one should refrain from doing what one can when it offends, he is similarly
clear about hairstyles: it is unnatural for me ...[text shortened]... with her head uncovered because of the angels.

Do you see how this is different?

Nemesio

This is going no where. I have expressed my views on the matter and you have expressed your views so we can agree to disagree.

Originally posted by whodey
This is going no where. I have expressed my views on the matter and you have expressed your views so we can agree to disagree.

Fine, ignore God's Word and wear your hair how you want. But don't you
dare ever chastise another person for being a practicing homosexual
and being a Christian, for treating the vague prohibitions on homoeroticism
the same way you treat hairstyle: as informed by the social conventions
of the time.

Being a practicing homosexual and a woman's not covering her head in
prayer are both unequivocally prohibited. You want to ignore one and
testify to the other.

Sounds like a Pharisee to me.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Stregone
Frankly, I don't get it. I have studied Judaism and have therefore thought the wearing of Kippas or having men cover their heads is a logical thing to do. So I definitely object to whoever said that about "covered heads bring shame."

Agreed.