Sexism And The Bible--fork

[Evangetholic]

I'm saying you are misreading the Traditions in question. If that makes sense.

[Apotheoun]

St. Paul's statements in connection with wearing a veil in Church are connected to God's glory and the presence of the holy angels in the liturgical assembly, which are unchanging theological realities; while in 1 Timothy he is dealing with the issue of modesty, which is a natural virtue, and in that case a woman should not adorn herself in any way that would detract from her virtue. Should women braid their hair? No, nor should they be concerned about wearing makeup and other non-essential things. Western culture is highly sexualized and unhealthy, and I think Christian women should try to set an example by not concerning themselves with unessential things. So as St. Paul said, let Christian women be adorned with ". . . good deeds, as befits women who profess religion."

Edited March 6, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Evangetholic]

You think women shouldn't braid their hair, Apo? I disagree with a literalist reading of that verse. The Church has never objected to braided hair in any context other than the immediate one Paul was objecting to. Women assisted at the Mass with braided hair for centuries in both east and west with no objection--virtually any way of styling long hair, which almost all laywomen had, could be considered braiding. Nor is makeup at Mass or in life a sin. I see neither of these things as having been taken literally. Ever.

 

I'd be interested to see from The Church's Tradition where they have been, if that's the case.

[Apotheoun]

You think women shouldn't braid their hair, Apo? I disagree with a literalist reading of that verse. The Church has never objected to braided hair in any context other than the immediate one Paul was objecting to. Women assisted at the Mass with braided hair for centuries in both east and west with no objection--virtually any way of styling long hair, which almost all laywomen had, could be considered braiding. Nor is makeup at Mass or in life a sin. I see neither of these things as having been taken literally. Ever.

 

I'd be interested to see from The Church's Tradition where they have been, if that's the case.

Although the reasoning behind the two texts is different, because as I indicated in the text of First Corinthians it is the glory of God and the presence of the holy angels that under-girds the practice of veiling; I see nothing wrong with following St. Paul's approach in First Timothy as well, although it is founded more upon exemplifying the natural virtue of modesty than upon the theological realities inherent to the liturgy.  

 

Here is a radical idea . . . maybe Christians should pay more attention to what St. Paul (and the other Apostles) said, after all he (and the others as well) were inspired by God to reveal His truth, while we are not. We are called upon to be faithful to what we have received, and that involves not simply dumping the things that some people think are difficult for us to do.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Autumn Dusk]

Although the reasoning behind the two texts is different, because as I indicated in the text of First Corinthians it is the glory of God and the presence of the holy angels that under-girds the practice of veiling; I see nothing wrong with following St. Paul's approach in First Timothy as well, although it is founded more upon exemplifying the natural virtue of modesty than upon the theological realities inherent to the liturgy.  

 

Here is a radical idea . . . maybe Christians should pay more attention to what St. Paul (and the other Apostles) said, after all he (and the others as well) were inspired by God to reveal His truth, while we are not. We are called upon to be faithful to what we have received, and that involves not simply dumping the things that some people think are difficult for us to do.

 

 

I'm going to prop this and like this because this is my point, while I'm on the other side of the debate in which I believe that those teachings were for another time in another place, I'm in FULL agreement that we cannot pic and choose what is devinly inspired and what we should and shouldn't follow.

[Evangetholic]

Although the reasoning behind the two texts is different, because as I indicated in the text of First Corinthians it is the glory of God and the presence of the holy angels that under-girds the practice of veiling; I see nothing wrong with following St. Paul's approach in First Timothy as well, although it is founded more upon exemplifying the natural virtue of modesty than upon the theological realities inherent to the liturgy.  

 

Here is a radical idea . . . maybe Christians should pay more attention to what St. Paul (and the other Apostles) said, after all he (and the others as well) were inspired by God to reveal His truth, while we are not. We are called upon to be faithful to what we have received, and that involves not simply dumping the things that some people think are difficult for us to do.

 

I agree.

[Apotheoun]

. . . Women assisted at the Mass with braided hair for centuries in both east and west with no objection--virtually any way of styling long hair, which almost all laywomen had, could be considered braiding. Nor is makeup at Mass or in life a sin. I see neither of these things as having been taken literally. Ever.

 

I'd be interested to see from The Church's Tradition where they have been, if that's the case.

I am sure that this is going to come as a shock, but people even in the East have sometimes failed to maintain the traditions that have been bequeathed to the Church from the Holy Fathers. That is why the Church is always in need of purification.

By the way, where did I say that anything was a "sin." Why do Westerners seem to think that something has to be a sin if it is to be avoided? I don't think wearing make-up is a sin, or that not wearing a veil is a sin. Should a woman (and a man) dress and groom in a modest manner? Yes. Should a woman wear a veil in the Church assembly and a man pray with head uncovered? Yes. Do either commit sins by not doing so? No, but they do dishonor themselves before God by failing to take into account the sacred nature of the liturgical synaxis.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Evangetholic]

Wel, I'm not going to apologize for being a Westerner and having Western (and explicitly Roman) biases and assumptions. My tradition speaks of things, much like the Bible, as being sins. In non-sins, I'm inclined to keep my mouth shut.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Evangetholic

[Apotheoun]

Wel, I'm not going to apologize for being a Westerner and having Western (and explicitly Roman biases and assumptions). My tradition speaks of things, much like the Bible, as being sins. In non-sins, I'm inclined to keep my mouth shut.

And the East has never accepted the Roman tendency to reduce everything to legal enactments and sins. Our approaches are different, and my point in saying what I did was to highlight that, so that hopefully in future you won't project the notions of sins (e.g., eating meat on Friday is a sin because the Roman Church has attached a canonical penalty to it) onto what I say. 

[Evangetholic]

And the East has never accepted the Roman tendency to reduce everything to legal enactments and sins. Our approaches are different, and my point in saying what I did was to highlight that, so that hopefully in future you won't project the notions of sins (e.g., eating meat on Friday is a sin because the Roman Church has attached a canonical penalty to it) onto what I say. 

 

I will try to remember. :)

[add]

Wel, I'm not going to apologize for being a Westerner and having Western (and explicitly Roman biases and assumptions). My tradition speaks of things, much like the Bible, as being sins. In non-sins, I'm inclined to keep my mouth shut.

You can do that (and Should ) without being so rude

[Evangetholic]

You can do that (and Should ) without being so rude

 

Who exactly are you?

[Apotheoun]

By the way, I do not see St. Paul using the word "sin" in either of the two texts that have been under discussion.

[Evangetholic]

By the way, I do not see St. Paul using the word "sin" in either of the two texts that have been under discussion.

 

Western readings and understandings of what sin is would define anything that was us going against God's revealed will as sin. Surely you remember this?

 

If God has said wear purple, but I choose instead to wear pink, I have sinned. Culpably? Who knows. Mortally? Probably not.

[Apotheoun]

In the text of First Corinthians he does use the word "dishonor" but that word can also be translated as "disfigure," which would indicate that he is emphasizing the sign value of wearing a veil in the case of a woman, and not wearing one in the case of a man.