English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

24 answers

.i want to answer this, but i'm too dang tired to do it tonite.
see ya tomorrow!

ok. i am still tired, but having seen the answers, i feel obliged to give it a shot. here goes:

in the bible, you have two basic rules. there are precepts (commands, laws, mandates, etc), and there are precedents (things that are referred to rarely, or only once, or to a particular situation). to understand this passage, you have to know something of the corinthian culture of paul's time. corinth was a city dedicated to athena, originally the virgin goddess of the hunt. by paul's time, the cult of athena had been so corrupted that she had become a fertility symbol, and her rites of worship had become so decadent as to be legendary - even among the decadent romans of the time. corinthian men and women regularly engaged in ritual temple prostitution during certain times of year. this lead to all kinds of sexually transmitted diseases, and whatnot. corinthians were considered the nasty ho's of the roman world. to call someone a "corinthian" was a profound insult, as it implied that the person was a degenerate, lecherous, morally bankrupt waste of oxygen. the church at corinth was made up of people who had been raised in this sexually promiscuous environment. to them, depravity was the norm. imagine how difficult it was for someone coming out of this way of life into the much stricter christian walk. old habits die hard. there were manifold resultant problems that paul was dealing with that were peculiar to the corinthians, so he made some rules that were biblically unique to them. he was trying to teach them a completely foreign way of life. nowhere else in his writings does paul require women to remain silent in meetings, but here was unique environment. women were viewed largely as property or as objects of desire...paul was trying to get the minds of his corinthians out of the gutter. corinth was a city dominated by the worship of a female deity, and there was an unhealthy tendancy toward effeminate, dominated men. the men in turn were driven by sexual impulses exascerbated by the athena cult. so the rules were peculiar to the corinthians. paul was establishing that women should be modest instead of provocative (the covering of the head was a symbol of chastity),
the not speaking in a meeting was to counter the weak masculinity of the men, and to minimize the sexual distractions so inherent in that culture. this set a precedent for women dressing modestly, and covering their heads, etc... paul does not make this an issue anywhere else, to any other group of believers. not a precept for the church in general, but to one specific locale.

however, all through his writings in the new testament, paul directly addresses adultery, promiscuity, drunkenness, debuachery, - any number of sins. he clearly mandates that these are not acceptable for any group of believers anywhere. there is a clear distinction between laws like these (which are also dealt with in the old testament), and precedents like the passage in corinthians.

when we read passages like this, it is very important to know the cultural and historical context in which they were written. then we can make a more accurate asessment of the writer's intent.

law versus precedent.

this is a good question - glad you asked! hope my answer helps a little :)

2006-09-26 20:52:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

History has it that wearing something over the head is a fashion showing that one is a decent girl.

(In some traditions, revealing one's hair is classified as Prostitute).

In the Corinetian's period, it was a large aflunce city. Many gifted believers there. For the first time, the women haing the same gift started to pray and preach.

Many see it as a sign of end-time. And since in the Heaven, there's no more male and female, so all are the same. Thus the women were behaving out of order. And Paul has to teach them to be in order, and not to stir up social harmony.

In that same book, Paul also taught that one should not have sex with the same sexes. . . Homo is a sin that is not new to this world.

He also taught that sexual act should be done legitmatelly, with husband and wife. Some were doing with Mother-in-law. . . So again, it is not something new.

Husband should not withhold their body for wife, nor the wife to their husband. Some religious man actually think sex is sinful, and Paul have to step in.

So, why not enforce? As it was their culture, to remain hamony in the church, they have to do so. Look at Asian Church, the women do preach, and pray. But the leadership still in the hands of male. Women and man know their function well. No need to identify with head-dress.

But as the wrong influnce coming from the west, I doubt this social hamony can last long. Let's see.

2006-09-26 21:04:59 · answer #2 · answered by Melvin C 5 · 0 0

He sugested. It's not an enforcement. He didn't say it's from God. Note everything he says, he always add if it's from God or his reasoning. He said that so we don't get distracted by the beauty of the woman hair while in church.

2006-09-26 20:59:54 · answer #3 · answered by good-for-all 3 · 1 0

fred,
If you don't believe that women should have long hair and that's their covering, come talk to me about it with the Word. And a woman that'll cut her hair dishonors her head. It's a sinful thing for a woman to offer prayer with short hair, the Bible said so, pray in public with her head uncovered, Oh, you say, "I wear a hat." You hypocrite. Teach them women such things as that when the Bible said her hair is given her for a covering, not some manmade hat. That's what the Bible said.

2006-09-26 21:29:30 · answer #4 · answered by freddie g 2 · 0 1

He said that he was speaking of his personal opinion. It's an act of piety that should be respected for those women who choose to do it, but it's not required because the Church left it up to personal choice for those women who want to devote themselves to God in this way.

2006-09-26 20:57:41 · answer #5 · answered by Life 2 · 0 0

It was a one off in the Bible - you must understand women in Jerusalem use to dress similar to Muslim women in the ME today. Uncovering your head was what prostitutes of the time use to do, to be seen like a prostitute in church is a bad thing.

This does go to our dress code today though. Women should wear a long dress, and long sleeves in church, no cleavage to be shown and legs. Men should dress similarly except with pants.

c0d14@hotmail.com

God bless!!

2006-09-26 21:01:18 · answer #6 · answered by Sky_blue 4 · 1 1

Paul meant in a literal sense: The veil he refers to is "cover your head "soul-heart and mind) with Christ.
That applies to men and children too. In the literal. Cover yourself with the veil of Christ.

Don't get caught up in a mistranslation.

2006-09-26 20:54:49 · answer #7 · answered by cork 7 · 0 2

He was simply following a Jewish custom of his time, but the custom changed among catholics, although Jews and Muslims still adhere to that custom.

2006-09-26 20:58:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

The Bible says a lot of things that people don't do. They don't do these things because they find them morally wrong or simply ridiculous. Muslims today and Christians during the Inquisition are how religions were meant to be practiced.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiIJ2D3Zp3jpG_fmjjGNVWsgBgx.?qid=20060927001915AAkNAVx

2006-09-26 20:54:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Maybe because Paul wrote it not Jesus or the word of God

2006-09-26 21:21:26 · answer #10 · answered by bullybrian2000 3 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers