1 Cor 11:6-9: 6:
For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
7 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 did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
Sexist?
@vivify saidYes, by the definition of men, the bible is sexist, racist, homophobic, Islamophobic and many other things not politically correct. But .... who cares. Those who follow the bible do not live their lives to please those who do not, and VV, so arguing about it is futile.
1 Cor 11:6-9: 6:
For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
7 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 did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
Sexist?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@vivify saidBefore I comment on 1 Cor. 11 a few other quotes from Darwin.
1 Cor 11:6-9: 6:
For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
7 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 did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
Sexist?
5.16 " The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, that woman can attain-whether deep thought, reason . . . "
Is this not a chauvinistic declaration of the evolution of males over females in humans?
5,37 ". . . the average standard of mental power in man must be above that of a women."
More latter. And I'll comment on the First Corinthian passage latter.
@rajk999 saidI know, right? Like, I'll be in the midst of beating down my slave, and I've got this totally sweet rhythm going with my punches, and some pansy libtard will ruin it with whines about how it's wrong to hit people and stuff. Really harshes my mellow!
Yes, by the definition of men, the bible is sexist, racist, homophobic, Islamophobic and many other things not politically correct. But .... who cares. Those who follow the bible do not live their lives to please those who do not, and VV, so arguing about it is futile.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@sonship
Charles Darwin continues:
5.41 "Man is more courageous, pugnacious, and energetic, than woman, and has more inventive genius."
5.50 "Thus man has ultimately become superior to woman."
On to Charles Darwin's views on the European standard of beauty and wealth.
6:30 "Many persons are convinced, as it appears to me with justice, that members of our aristocracy, including in this term all wealthy families . . . from having chosen from many generations from all classes the more beautiful women as their wives, have become handsomer, according to the European standard of beauty, then the middle classes;"
Remember that when you Evolution enthusiasts proudly display a Darwin fish on your car's bumper, especially you women Evolution enthusiasts. This is the person you're bragging in. Even evolution has separated out the middle class below the aristocracy I guess "selecting" greater handsomeness and beauty to their members.
The people with more money are evolving and selecting the more beautiful spouses. They didn't tell you about this natural selection when brain washing your young minds with Darwin's heroic theory?
@bigdogg saidTake your stupid standards and stick them you know where
I know, right? Like, I'll be in the midst of beating down my slave, and I've got this totally sweet rhythm going with my punches, and some pansy libtard will ruin it with whines about how it's wrong to hit people and stuff. Really harshes my mellow!
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@vivify saidVivify, I have to consider Paul's words in the same section which you did not include. Following: "For a man ought not to have his head covered, sine he is God's image and glory but the woman is the glory of the man." (v.7)
1 Cor 11:6-9: 6:
For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
7 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 did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
Sexist?
"For man is not out of woman, but woman out of man;" (v.8)
He is "out of" relates to Eve being brought OUT of man and back TO man as his wife in Genesis.
This of course is a preview and window into the climax of history when all saved people (men and women) are collectively a woman and wife to Christ. In light of the whole Bible all of "mankind" ends up as a woman to the unique eternal Husband and Bridegroom Christ - God incarnate.
All the saved men in the eyes of God are a Woman and Wife. Since God knew from eternity that He would present to Himself a corporate entity OUT FROM Himself as her Savior and Creator, He beforehand gave a preview in the creation of men and women. Adam slept and a part of him was taken out and brought back to him to be his counterpart, helpmeet, romantic lover, and companion.
In this regard Paul goes on as if Genesis two is opened before him.
"For also man was not created for the sake of the woman, but the woman for the sake of the man." (v.9)
The man is incomplete without the woman brought out of him and to him. That is why God heightened Adam's expectation by having him compare himself with all the animals as he gave them identities and names. NONE of them matched him. The woman brought OUT of him as he slept deeply matched him [AS COLLECTIVE New Jerusalem the climax of history will match Christ].
"And the man said, This time this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called Woman Because out of Man this one was taken." (Gen. 2:23)
I will speak of head covering in another post. But Paul hastens to add that in the Lord neither man is without woman or visa versa. Both are interdependent upon one another.
"However neither is woman without man, nor man without woman, in the Lord." (v.11).
In the Christian church the believers should realize this MUTUAL interdependence of men to women and women to men.
'For just as the woman is out from the man, SO ALSO IS THE MAN THROUGH THE WOMAN; but all things are out from God." (v.12)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
It is important to me to consider the whole scope of chapter 11. And though he does spend time explaining why women worshippers should have head coverings and men worshippers should not, this comment of mutual dependence concurs with Paul's other saying. That is that in the Christian church there CANNOT be the typical societal oppression of male over female.
"There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor free, there cannot be male and female; for you all are one in Christ Jesus. And if you are of Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise." (Gal. 3:28,29)
Racial chauvinism is excluded - it "cannot be" in the normal church.
Slave / Free chauvinism is excluded. It also "cannot be" in the New Testament healthy church life.
Male / Female chauvinism is also excluded - "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There CANNOT BE Jew nor Greek . . . slave nor free man . . . male and female."
Of course Paul doesn't mean no physiological differences exist between men and women. And his instructions of men treating women with utmost purity in motive, decency, appearance and high morality in his letters to Titus and Timothy show him light years ahead in this regard to say Islam.
The Christian faith's extensive spread in the ancient world had also its impetus that WOMEN detected that they were getting a much better treatment of respect with Christ's Gospel.
And Jesus did teach that in the resurrection and glorification there would be no longer sex differences as for them marriage would not be taking place among the glorifies sons of God. Men and women will be "like the angels" in that regard.
"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." (Matt. 22:30)
I'll try to talk about head covering symbolism in another post.
@fmf saidOn the first page of a thread about Darwin you immediately reach for the topic of eternal damnation, and you act like someone else is overly repetitive.
Every single thread you start about your religion is underpinned by your odious and non-sensical torturer God ideology and implicit assertions about how human beings who do not share your particular set of superstitious beliefs deserve to be tortured for eternity. That's conveying "some negative thing" about all those people, to my way of thinking. That's not having a positive purpose. Do you think it is?
This is not good posting. ^^
But, please, continue posting the way that you see fit.
@philokalia saidsonship's claim that most of the threads he starts have a positive purpose - and that he doesn't like to make many threads which seem only to convey some negative thing about people - is abject narcissistic, misanthropic nonsense. The demented moral darkness at the very heart of his beliefs permeates everything he posts.
On the first page of a thread about Darwin you immediately reach for the topic of eternal damnation, and you act like someone else is overly repetitive.
