Sexism And The Bible--fork

[Evangetholic]

He's not a (practicing) Catholic but we can still learn about our faith and relationship with God from others, whether they share our faith or a different one. That's been my experience anyway.

 

I'll learn decency from him. I'll learn to hold to my understanding of righteousness from him. I'll learn how to be steadfast in the face of opposition from him. I'll learn how to troll from him. I'll learn how to be an Alinskyian mole from him (I kid). I will not learn Christian doctrine from him--but the moment he confesses Christ I will give his opinions on such matters great weight.

[Lilllabettt]

I get and understand the need for erudite, intellectual, critical examination of Scripture.  Lots of good thinking, broadening understanding, all of it within the big tent of Church teaching. On the other hand ... it can trouble, or scandalize  good, simple believers -people who live on pure, unrefined faith. And these people - they have a right to their faith. Its one of the primary missions of the Church, to protect these simple people. That's why they silence theologians. And sometimes they silence theologians who aren't really outside the big tent -- but they want to shut them up for the sake of the "little" ones.

 

Anyway. I sort of see that happening here. kind of. NOT saying anyone -needs to be / should be -silent, btw

Edited March 6, 2013 by Lilllabettt

[Autumn Dusk]

Yes I do believe he would "waste" his time being inspired by the Holy Spirit to write about veiling. The Holy Spirit had him to write it then and He would again today.

 

If you finish the passage it basically sais that it's sinful and abbherent for men to care for their hair.  Yet every time a veiling tread comes up this is generally ignored.  *If* women are to veil than using conditioner---heck---even a barber is a huge sin.  When I see Catholic men donning crew cuts that aren't smelling of axe or monster or some other conglomeration, then we'll talk.

 

Thing is that it is no longer a shame for men to care for their hair.  It's the whole stipulation that St. Paul builds veiling upon.

 

Other lines about plaiting hair would turn all 5yo with braided pigtails into sluts. We know that we cannot dress like sluts, but plaiting (braiding) hair no longer indicates whorish behavior.

[Apotheoun]

If you finish the passage it basically sais that it's sinful and abbherent for men to care for their hair.  Yet every time a veiling tread comes up this is generally ignored.  *If* women are to veil than using conditioner---heck---even a barber is a huge sin.  When I see Catholic men donning crew cuts that aren't smelling of axe or monster or some other conglomeration, then we'll talk.

 

Thing is that it is no longer a shame for men to care for their hair.  It's the whole stipulation that St. Paul builds veiling upon.

 

Other lines about plaiting hair would turn all 5yo with braided pigtails into silly sallies. We know that we cannot dress like silly sallies, but plaiting (braiding) hair no longer indicates whorish behavior.

St. Paul says nothing about men "taking care" of their hair; instead, he says men are not to wear long hair. I don't think St. Paul is encouraging uncleanly behavior on anyone. I have a feeling that St. Paul would be quite happy with crew cuts.

 

As far as the reasons for not veiling (men) and veiling (women) are concerned, St. Paul connects those particular practices to the glory of God and the presence of the holy angels.

[Evangetholic]

No one ever interpreted the lines about "nourishing" hair or about women braiding their hair etc. in the way that you are trying to force the Tradition to do.

[Autumn Dusk]

St. Paul says nothing about men "taking care" of their hair; instead, he says men are not to wear long hair. I don't think St. Paul is encouraging uncleanly behavior on anyone. I have a feeling that St. Paul would be quite happy with crew cuts.

 

As far as the reasons for not veiling (men) and veiling (women) are concerned, St. Paul connects those particular practices to the glory of God and the presence of the holy angels.

 

¹⁴ Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him?   15 But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.   16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the church of God.   17 Now this I ordain: not praising you, that you come together not for the better, but for the worse.

What do you think "nourish" means?

[Evangetholic]

And as far as ong hair goes Catholic men have sported long hair since very early in the Church. Copying the explicitly feminine is the obvious point. St Paul wasn't even offering a new prohibition he was reiterating a wholesome Jewish tradition.

[Autumn Dusk]

No one ever interpreted the lines about "nourishing" hair or about women braiding their hair etc. in the way that you are trying to force the Tradition to do.

 

The Bible is quite clear on not braiding hair and the implication of doing such

 

http://www.openbible.info/topics/braided_hair

[Evangetholic]

The Bible is quite clear on not braiding hair and the implication of doing such

 

http://www.openbible.info/topics/braided_hair

 

You're doing pagan violence to the text. Show me where in Christian history, the clear and authoritative teaching and practice of the Church anyone ever understood these verses in the way you seem to believe they did.

[Autumn Dusk]

You're doing pagan violence to the text. Show me where in Christian history, the clear and authoritative teaching and practice of the Church anyone ever understood these verses in the way you seem to believe they did.

 

Pagan violence?  Did you eat conspisary o's for breakfast?

 

This is my POINT.  There are clear, well defined, repeated traditions in the Bible that have NOT carried to our times.

[Evangetholic]

This clear repeated tradition was not a clear repeated tradition though--at least not in the way you need it to be to make this point. Jewish men did wear their hair long before our Lord came. As part of Nazorite vows for example. The prohibition was always (I can't believe I'm saying this, but check the Talmud) understood as being agaist feminine styles not length, per se.

[Evangetholic]

And "pagan violence" means you are reading the text with the reductio ad absurdum literalism people always approach the Bible with when its precepts are unpleasant to them. This is not me accusing you of being a Pagan.

[Autumn Dusk]

This clear repeated tradition was not a clear repeated tradition though--at least not in the way you need it to be to make this point. Jewish men did wear their hair long before our Lord came. As part of Nazorite vows for example. The prohibition was always (I can't believe I'm saying this, but check the Talmud) understood as being agaist feminine styles not length, per se.

 

Back to the braiding evangetholic for a moment, because that's what we were talking about.  What part about "must not" is unclear.  In every verse, in every translation that I can find it's pretty darn clear that braiding your hair and wearing gold is very sinful indeed.

 

Onto the taking care of your hair...I'm not sure where you get the long hair bit into the argument but nourish in general meant to take care of, to treat with product that made hair soft and smell good.  Shorn hair on a woman would probably be equivliant to some short hairstyles today.

 

As far as OT views...some of the commands WERE speaking to traditions, which was my point.  The literal translation is only a reflection on what we are to do today.

[Evangetholic]

I do not think any of these things are treated in the text itself, in our Tradition, or in Jewish tradition, as having ever been literal and absolute. The precept is: do not look or act like a woman if you are a man. Not be unclean, do not wear god, etc. I mentioned long hair because it is a similar prohibition.

[Apotheoun]

Well as long as God's glory and the holy angels are no longer present at the masses of the Roman Rite I think it is fine for women to go into those parish Churches with heads uncovered.