You must log in or register to comment.
Removed by mod
No no no, I have a daughter.
Corinthians 11 is one of the most interesting passages St. Paul ever wrote because of the fact that it is so pithy & full of meaning, yet also so unclear.
2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife[a] is her husband,[b] and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife[c] who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.[d] 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
There’s so much here - it’s definitely worth far more discussions than a single paragraph of text normally ever is. I think it is so amazing because it simultaneously reiterates conservative Christian social ontology and it also advances a sense of equality…
But the equality of man and woman are lived in the secular world, and they exist practically in the Orthodox church in all things but the structure of clergy. The only differences are in terms of appearance.
But it is also fascinating because it is suggested that her hair is a veil. I do not know what this means - it seems to be that women in church are fine simply with their hair, but some women do actively choose to veil themselves. IDK. As stated in another comment, we have peopel who do both in our church.
Removed by mod
It isn’t a cult - she is not closed off from the world nor subjected to any kind of brainwashing. It is quite an insult to say that.
I think you do not understand Christianity, and it shows.
Do you hate the Muslims too?
Do you only get your sense of morality from imaginary people in the sky?
Don’t want to answer that one?
All religions need to abolished and relinquished to the past. Humanity can’t progress if such archaic practices are continued.
Why do you distinguish between outdated cults?
This is silly not just because it is wrong, but because it also fails to account for the fact that most technological “progress” is the accomplishment of an extreme minority of people. A huge amount of them, as well, have been completely open to religion, viewing it as a different domain…
What you’re saying isn’t just wrong, it’s dangerously irrelevant to what “progress” even means…
And if you mean it in some ‘social progress’ sense of the word, you will not find much progress socially in atheist states.
I was just curious if you extended the same views equally, there’s often a dissonance where people hate Christianity as being outdated, but praise other religions as being wonderful cultural heritage.
Equality my ass, where do you see equality when in 3 it clearly stablish a hierarchy?
To be completely fair, look at this passage:
The wife’s body does not belong only to her. It also belongs to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong only to him. It also belongs to his wife. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. (1 Corinthians 7:4)
Pay attention to this as well., from the same chapter.:
12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.
It gives the idea that a wife can leave a husband if she is not comfortable with the religious arrangement of the marriage. That is an awful lot of liberty in addition to also being told that the husband yields his body to his wife and “does not have authority over his own body.”
I see this as quite equal.
You can fixate on man himself being made in the image of God, but ‘woman is the glory of man,’ and when we cense icons, and when we cense the people in the church, it includes both men and women. Mary, the mother of God, is the greatest and cleanest and purest human to ever live that was not part God.
No person alive can approach Mary in holiness.
A woman is the head of the human race, essentially.
That’s the thing about the Bible, it’s such a mess of contradictions you can pick texts for anything you want to convey. And the interpretations change over time to not be so unpopular.
I don’t interpret this new passage the same as you, it clearly says the believers can’t leave their partner, only the unbelievers can, that’s not liberty.
It is not really a mess at all when it is understood how the New Testament supersedes the Old, and the Old can only exist within a relativistic historical context. Revelation was progressive.
It is also the case that we Orthodox view much of the content of the OT to be highly symbolic, each passage having a variety of meanings, some of which are only historical in nature with the moral truth disclosed more discretely.
I don’t interpret this new passage the same as you, it clearly says the believers can’t leave their partner, only the unbelievers can, that’s not liberty.
This is about religious practice, though - it has nothing to do with liberty as it concerns the non-believer.
Being a believer means acknowledging a higher truth than oneself and shaping one’s life after it.
It’s pretty weird, because it says her hair is a head covering, but then says if she prays without (an additional?) head covering she should cut her hair? But cutting her hair is an affront? Dude, speak more clearly!
If someone came up and said that deluded gibberish to me I’d back away slowly and prepare to run while keeping an eye on them.
So Christianity wants women to wear hijabs like muslims?
No - the debate is about whether or not women should wear a veil while in the church, and the majority consensus it seems is ‘no,’ but some do it.
There is no position that they should wear it all the time outside of a church that I know of.
It’s like bird poop, isn’t it?
So, the full context is not even given in the original Corinthians 11… It’s a discussion about whether or not women should wear a veil while praying, which is basically a discussion about whether or not a woman should wear a veil on her head while inside the church.
I actually do not have any dog in this fight. Our church has women who do and women who do not.
I just thought it was a funny meme because of the ‘refuses to elaborate’ part.
