• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The Bible and women wearing veils.

Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
I find it odd that *some* (you know who) Christians are so against women wearing the veil considering what the Bible has to say on the matter:

1 Corinthians 11:
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. 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. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.

Regarding the obvious misogyny in Islam, there is plenty in the Bible too:

1 Timothy 2:

Also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.

Ephesians 5:22-24:

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

As i read through these verses it becomes obvious for me that regardless of version the three Abrahamic religions have all justifications for misogyny embedded in their holy texts.
 

Smoblikat

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2011
5,184
107
106
Too bad there is no god and the bible is a lie, otherwise democrats could use this against us republicans by calling us "crazy bible thumpers"

inb4 "youre a crazy bible thumper"
 

amdhunter

Lifer
May 19, 2003
23,276
165
106
46
Because Christians are retarded and should be ashamed of themselves for believing in imaginary things.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
First one- it was culturally disrespectful to do otherwise.

Second, the best translations render it in the sense of inappropriate authority, not any. That women had households with male servants back that.

Third, submission means deferral, not enslavement.

I don't care if muslim women wear a veil or not. France has much more to say than anyone in the US.
Me? I think they should do as they please. It's not anyone's business.
 
Last edited:

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,649
98
91
First one- it was culturally disrespectful to do otherwise.
So you're saying it's not biblical for a woman to veil herself during prayer, even tho it says so in the bible's new testament? Or that the bible is about cultural references of that time, not now? Or that 1 Corinthians is all about cultural references at that time only, not intended for now.

Or that you're picking and choosing your conclusions to fit today's culture and interpretations...
 

Binarycow

Golden Member
Jan 10, 2010
1,238
2
76
the new Testament, dude. Christians only pay lip service to the old Testament :sneaky:
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
So you're saying it's not biblical for a woman to veil herself during prayer, even tho it says so in the bible's new testament? Or that the bible is about cultural references of that time, not now? Or that 1 Corinthians is all about cultural references at that time only, not intended for now.

Or that you're picking and choosing your conclusions to fit today's culture and interpretations...
You might note about men and their hair. It was to be cut. Now Samson took the vows of a nazarite, and that meant he didn't. Now if one insists on a verbatim interpretation then one or the other is "wrong".

Everything has context. Not hard to figure that out.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,303
514
126
You forgot to put in the new testament passage that says it's a man's duty to beat his wife if she disobeys him.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Yes, many religions have misogyny in their texts. It doesn't forgive it in Islam.

You have to look at the cultural and religious nexus in practice and that's where Islam really loses.
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,649
98
91
You might note about men and their hair. It was to be cut. Now Samson took the vows of a nazarite, and that meant he didn't. Now if one insists on a verbatim interpretation then one or the other is "wrong".

Everything has context. Not hard to figure that out.
You're suggesting these works were written and/or included in the new testament to be ignored by future generations, only worthy of respect back in those days.

That women were only to be silent, not to teach or have authority over men, at the time those words were written or included in the Bible. That these were not words 'inspired by God' to address 'his people', but just 'those people' were meant to accept these teachings.

That's wrong. They were written and included as a guide for all to use. It's the later generations, including ours, that see how ridiculous those statements are and qualify the absurdities as written 'in context with their society', instead of admitting what is written in the Bible might be fallable, and not necessarily God's word.

Slavery is one of the most glaring examples. The Bible suggests there is a righteous way to treat their slaves and for slaves to treat their masters. Slavery as an institution is never rebuked throughout all the generations that the Bible encompasses.

Jumping ahead, I'd venture to guess you're going to 'redefine' the term 'slave' or claim that was 'in context' of the times, which is the typical Christian scapegoat pacification of one's belief the Bible is 100% the word of God. Afaic, those arguments are incessantly weak imo, and typical of 'believers' who won't admit the Bible might be fallible.

This is not an argument for or against God, for or against faith. It's an argument against the Bible being the inerrant word of God, because it's obviously not as a whole.
 
Last edited:
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Yes, many religions have misogyny in their texts. It doesn't forgive it in Islam.

You have to look at the cultural and religious nexus in practice and that's where Islam really loses.

This is the difference right here except it looks like the op cant understand this though
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
As for me, I think JOS is the one who got it right here and asked the correct question.

As we in the USA may think ourselves truly enligtened, but we still never granted our female population the right to vote until 1912, and still have yet to pass and equal rights amendment to our constitution.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
You're suggesting these works were written and/or included in the new testament to be ignored by future generations, only worthy of respect back in those days.

That women were only to be silent, not to teach or have authority over men, at the time those words were written or included in the Bible. That these were not words 'inspired by God' to address 'his people', but just 'those people' were meant to accept these teachings.

That's wrong. They were written and included as a guide for all to use. It's the later generations, including ours, that see how ridiculous those statements are and qualify the absurdities as written 'in context with their society', instead of admitting what is written in the Bible might be fallable, and not necessarily God's word.

Slavery is one of the most glaring examples. The Bible suggests there is a righteous way to treat their slaves and for slaves to treat their masters. Slavery as an institution is never rebuked throughout all the generations that the Bible encompasses.

Jumping ahead, I'd venture to guess you're going to 'redefine' the term 'slave' or claim that was 'in context' of the times, which is the typical Christian scapegoat pacification of one's belief the Bible is 100% the word of God. Afaic, those arguments are incessantly weak imo, and typical of 'believers' who won't admit the Bible might be fallible.

This is not an argument for or against God, for or against faith. It's an argument against the Bible being the inerrant word of God, because it's obviously not as a whole.
It's interesting that you presume to speak for the entire christian spectrum of beliefs, and obviously haven't done your homework. This is a matter of faith. You presume correctness in the absence of knowledge. You assign your personal criteria which others must abide by. You don't even understand slavery because it's too emotional an issue for you to grasp in the context of other times. Yes there is such a thing as historical context. I will point out something you probably have not considered. Assuming humans exist in some equally distant future generation you will be held to and unknowable standard of morality and may be found as wanting as those in the past are to you. I suggest looking into a Michael Palin documentary which describes what Rome was like to the ordinary citizen. It was not a "bad" place, it was horrific, and that was for citizens. Slaves? You have no idea what treatment of them was like. They weren't people.

Educate yourself then pontificate later.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,606
3,734
126
It's interesting that you presume to speak for the entire christian spectrum of beliefs, and obviously haven't done your homework. This is a matter of faith. You presume correctness in the absence of knowledge. You assign your personal criteria which others must abide by. You don't even understand slavery because it's too emotional an issue for you to grasp in the context of other times. Yes there is such a thing as historical context. I will point out something you probably have not considered. Assuming humans exist in some equally distant future generation you will be held to and unknowable standard of morality and may be found as wanting as those in the past are to you. I suggest looking into a Michael Palin documentary which describes what Rome was like to the ordinary citizen. It was not a "bad" place, it was horrific, and that was for citizens. Slaves? You have no idea what treatment of them was like. They weren't people.

Educate yourself then pontificate later.
I think Historical Context is very important. In fact, it's one of the main reasons to reject the claims made of the Bible in the first place.

In regards to the Old Testament and Slavery it is far more damning to the claims of the Bible being "God's Word". The situation was that "God" had a whole nation with its' own independent Culture to work with and it still succumbs to "Historical Context"? What utter BS. It went to great lengths to separate itself from neighbouring Cultures with unique practices in all sorts of areas, but not in this most obvious one where such a "God" would assuredly enlighten its' followers.

Just underscores the fact of the matter. That being that "God" is a Human invention, but more specifically, a Male Human invention.
 

Geosurface

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2012
5,776
4
0
Veils are a small thing, though they are quite stupid.

The real issue is that immigration into European nations from Muslim areas should be halted, full stop.
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
You're suggesting these works were written and/or included in the new testament to be ignored by future generations, only worthy of respect back in those days.

That women were only to be silent, not to teach or have authority over men, at the time those words were written or included in the Bible. That these were not words 'inspired by God' to address 'his people', but just 'those people' were meant to accept these teachings.

That's wrong. They were written and included as a guide for all to use. It's the later generations, including ours, that see how ridiculous those statements are and qualify the absurdities as written 'in context with their society', instead of admitting what is written in the Bible might be fallable, and not necessarily God's word.

Slavery is one of the most glaring examples. The Bible suggests there is a righteous way to treat their slaves and for slaves to treat their masters. Slavery as an institution is never rebuked throughout all the generations that the Bible encompasses.

Jumping ahead, I'd venture to guess you're going to 'redefine' the term 'slave' or claim that was 'in context' of the times, which is the typical Christian scapegoat pacification of one's belief the Bible is 100% the word of God. Afaic, those arguments are incessantly weak imo, and typical of 'believers' who won't admit the Bible might be fallible.

This is not an argument for or against God, for or against faith. It's an argument against the Bible being the inerrant word of God, because it's obviously not as a whole.
You would actually have to understand the exact context, not only of the culture, but primarily of the condition of the church itself- the church in Corinth. If you actually read the book of 1st Corinthians, you would see that they were gong a bit nuts with pursuing the spiritual gifts - there was chaos during the church meeting times and general disorder. As such they were focusing too much on the external, and needed more strict guidelines- the guidelines Paul put forth for them was to direct their efforts to work on the inward man rather than focusing on the external things. Also, and related to the preceding, there was alot of sexual immorality in the Church at Corinth. Apparently some men were sleeping with their mothers or step-mothers. The church was a mess. If you want to learn more, just read the book- it isn't very long.
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
I think Historical Context is very important. In fact, it's one of the main reasons to reject the claims made of the Bible in the first place.

In regards to the Old Testament and Slavery it is far more damning to the claims of the Bible being "God's Word". The situation was that "God" had a whole nation with its' own independent Culture to work with and it still succumbs to "Historical Context"? What utter BS. It went to great lengths to separate itself from neighbouring Cultures with unique practices in all sorts of areas, but not in this most obvious one where such a "God" would assuredly enlighten its' followers.

Just underscores the fact of the matter. That being that "God" is a Human invention, but more specifically, a Male Human invention.
One can do any manner of things. My point isn't to encourage or dissuade one's faith, but there is a certain apparent inability in many to distance themselves from their own beliefs and that of others. For example let's take slavery in a non-biblical sense. Why did it exist? Because economies are like thermodynamics. They tend to seek the means where the greatest production for minimal return. Slaves do not consume as much resources. If one conquers a people and does not want them to rise up against you, then you enslave them. You get work done while they consume relatively little compared to the average citizen. They don't have much of a choice. They performed tasks that animals could not. They were your dishwasher, your lawn mower, your appliances of today. That's how they were viewed. They were your kitchenaid mixer and thats how most societies viewed them. Now that you have the luxury of not having to deal with a society which uses them you can judge in a moral sense. Of course that's easy isn't it? Of course if your life depended on having freed slaves or starving it might not be so clear cut. That's the facts of the matter and while it may make people squirm, that's the "why" of it all.

Was cruelty compulsory? No, but feeding your family was, and again you have the luxury of judging other cultures and times from your "enlightened" (meaning with a full belly) perspective.

Again note this has nothing to do with the Bible. That is how things were and what does matter from a New Testament perspective was how people treated others slave or free. Whether their beliefs were erroneous or not isn't my point. Christians were subsequently persecuted for treating people better than the non-religious Romans who at the peak of power considered their religious figures as social in nature. In the real world of the day you could do much worse than the Christians, but unless you were willing to die you couldn't do much better.

Slavery was life. A life you would have embraced if you had a choice. We aren't inherently superior to the Romans, we're able to put ourselves on pedestals that they built allowing you to do so.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,606
3,734
126
One can do any manner of things. My point isn't to encourage or dissuade one's faith, but there is a certain apparent inability in many to distance themselves from their own beliefs and that of others. For example let's take slavery in a non-biblical sense. Why did it exist? Because economies are like thermodynamics. They tend to seek the means where the greatest production for minimal return. Slaves do not consume as much resources. If one conquers a people and does not want them to rise up against you, then you enslave them. You get work done while they consume relatively little compared to the average citizen. They don't have much of a choice. They performed tasks that animals could not. They were your dishwasher, your lawn mower, your appliances of today. That's how they were viewed. They were your kitchenaid mixer and thats how most societies viewed them. Now that you have the luxury of not having to deal with a society which uses them you can judge in a moral sense. Of course that's easy isn't it? Of course if your life depended on having freed slaves or starving it might not be so clear cut. That's the facts of the matter and while it may make people squirm, that's the "why" of it all.

Was cruelty compulsory? No, but feeding your family was, and again you have the luxury of judging other cultures and times from your "enlightened" (meaning with a full belly) perspective.

Again note this has nothing to do with the Bible. That is how things were and what does matter from a New Testament perspective was how people treated others slave or free. Whether their beliefs were erroneous or not isn't my point. Christians were subsequently persecuted for treating people better than the non-religious Romans who at the peak of power considered their religious figures as social in nature. In the real world of the day you could do much worse than the Christians, but unless you were willing to die you couldn't do much better.

Slavery was life. A life you would have embraced if you had a choice. We aren't inherently superior to the Romans, we're able to put ourselves on pedestals that they built allowing you to do so.
BS. At best, Slavery was a convenience, but it wasn't a necessity.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,214
126
BS. At best, Slavery was a convenience, but it wasn't a necessity.
No it wasn't. The trade off is that civilization was based on some form of it. You don't like it, but that's OK. Civilization isn't a necessity either.

BTW, if you lived in Roman times as a garden variety citizen, what would you have thought of slavery? How would have your society effectively survived if everyone was freed?

What qualifies you to be more "moral" now than you would have been then? How do you afford your sensibilities? In fact what gives you any right to say in Objective Reality terms (note the caps) to be absolutist about this?

It's OK to be against slavery. I am too, but I've examined realities as they exist and as they did then. I'm not against you being against it, but I am questioning your unquestioning self.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,606
3,734
126
No it wasn't. The trade off is that civilization was based on some form of it. You don't like it, but that's OK. Civilization isn't a necessity either.

BTW, if you lived in Roman times as a garden variety citizen, what would you have thought of slavery? How would have your society effectively survived if everyone was freed?

What qualifies you to be more "moral" now than you would have been then? How do you afford your sensibilities? In fact what gives you any right to say in Objective Reality terms (note the caps) to be absolutist about this?

It's OK to be against slavery. I am too, but I've examined realities as they exist and as they did then. I'm not against you being against it, but I am questioning your unquestioning self.
If I had lived then, certainly my views on the subject would be different. Hell, they would be much different if I lived a few centuries ago. It doesn't change whether I'm more Moral about the subject now one bit. It is clearly more moral to not condone Slavery. Sorry.

Yes, Rome would be different without Slavery, but it did not need to have Slavery, no Civilization did. You may think they did, but all that history proves on the subject is that they were willing to use Slavery, not that they couldn't survive without it.

You're having to defend, deflect, and make bad excuses for something that shouldn't need it. The reason is that it was the invention of people of an age that couldn't foresee the possibilities. We have the benefit of hindsight, they didn't. I don't think they were Evil people, but they were clearly less Moral than us and it's quite vile that many of us continue to look upon them for guidance when we far surpass their knowledge/morals in every conceivable way.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Veils are a small thing, though they are quite stupid.

The real issue is that immigration into European nations from Muslim areas should be halted, full stop.
Thats one of the problems were currently facing right now, large amounts of immigrants from muslim countries who refuse to adopt the values of the country and instead insist on bringing there backwards values. Its happening all over Europe.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY