Guest AndyPandy Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Why don't most women wear head coverings in church as Paul told them to? Each time I see one of those vile televangelist things, with the preacher bobbing up and down screeching and moaning, none of the women congregants was wearing any form of head covering, and worse still, their hair was short. Wasn't short hair a sign of being a bit of a whore in Biblical times? Or have I missed something out here? When they start moaning about me being gay, I enjoy pointing this passage out to them and watch them justify it all away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 AndyPandy, As a christian I went to a church for a while where this was still a contentious issue and all of the older women and few of the younger ones wore hats in church ~ interestingly most of the older women had their hair cut short. The pastor taught that if a woman cut her hair ... she should cover her head, but if she had long hair 'her long hair symbolised a covering'. This story won't help other than hopefully it will bring a smile to your face ... a friend of mine was being taken to task in this church for the fact that she had short hair and refused to wear a hat or drape a shawl over her head in church. One of the elders challenged her. 'Imagine this' he said, you arrive in heaven and you are handed a note. The note indicates that you are summoned to a meeting with Jesus. (One of the things I love about this story is this elder seems to have an image of an old fashioned Boarding School in mind when he imagines Heaven ) You arrive at his Office and go in nervously, 'child' he says, 'I wanted to see you to ask you why you disobeyed my simple command to wear a head covering in church'. 'Now then', the elder said to my friend, having set his scene - 'what are you going to say to your Lord when he asks you that?' My friend paused briefly and then replied ...'Phew! Is that all you want to see me about?!' My parents were both fundamentalists christians and ascribed to everything bar the head covering for women. I once asked my Mum why she didn't cover her head and she said 'because I look silly in a hat'. Back to your point Andy, a valid one and a great example of how christians pick and choose from the Bible. Head coverings along with mixed fibre garments and shellfish and the sabbath somehow seem to be movable feasts whilst same sex relationships propel some hat wearers and non hat wearers alike into twisted knicker land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checkmate Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Hah! I truly LOVE the old "head covering" issue, as it points out both hypocrisy and stupidity simultaneously. MOST churches conveniently ignore this issue FOR WOMEN, because these are MODERN times, and such things don't matter today. HAHAHAHA! Meanwhile, these same churches LOVE to hang onto other OLD ideas (such as tithing and cursing homosexuality) because it suits them. Also, I emphasized FOR WOMEN earlier because the "head coverings" rule is STILL in effect FOR MEN. The same passages that command women to COVER their heads, also command men to UNCOVER theirs. This is where we get the notion that men MUST remove their hats INSIDE the church (and in other buildings as well). Haven't you ever seen it happen? Some dude goes into the church with his hat/cap/sombrero on, and instantly people descend upon him in outrage! "You must remove your hat! This is the house of gawd!" (I still don't know why the pope and priests and Jews get to wear THEIR little beanies, but hey. Whatever. It's ALL weird to me!) Gotta LOVE ye olde double standards. And then, you've GOT to wonder: WHY would "god" have such a hard-on for "head coverings"? Why is my head adornment just as important as murdering someone? WTF? (I believe THIS notion is why most churches don't enforce coverings and such on women. They recognize it as stupid. But then, why still enforce the rule on men?) Oh, and as for the short hair on women denoting "prostitute" nonsense? It's just that. NONSENSE. Some asshole made that shit up trying to explain and dance around the whole "head covering" issue. And now it is bandied about so often that people think there is some truth to it. Typical urban myth-making. Cute topic, AndyPandy. Way to stir up the pot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 I think the rules allow for a woman to shave her head bald instead of wearing a hat. Once, the church I was in had a big get together up in the mountains. We had a campfire, and I brought my guitar, and it was all nice, and we "fellowshipped", and did all that christiany stuff. So, after awhile, we gathered in a big circle, and joined hands, all kum-ba-ya like, and we got ready to pray. Well, I was wearing a ball cap at the time. Some lady lit into me and read me the freakin riot act. I mean, WE WERE IN THE MOUNTAINS, for CHRISSAKES! Needless to say, I didn't feel real freakin spiritual after that. I shoulda told her that I'll remove my hat as soon as she puts hers on, or shaves her head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dianka Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 I was I had a religious headcovering.....it's flippin cold out there today! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Gods Fail Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 The whole head-covering thing is what kills me about the legalism vs. grace argument. We've been 'freed' from the bondage of legalism - as long as we follow these rules... And why on earth would god possibly give a shit about something like hair length on women? Aren't there more important issues than that? It's almost as if whoever wrote the bible was putting their own opinions in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixentrox Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 The whole head-covering thing is what kills me about the legalism vs. grace argument. We've been 'freed' from the bondage of legalism - as long as we follow these rules... And why on earth would god possibly give a shit about something like hair length on women? Aren't there more important issues than that? It's almost as if whoever wrote the bible was putting their own opinions in it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Almost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiantBear Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 The head covering thing looks biblical to me. "All Christians did it until 50 years ago" (a quote I've heard) St. Paul never says "It is our custom. Let's do it this way for now. It's kinda nice. Not a big deal. But, ya know...." St. Paul says "women wear a head covering BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS" I don't know what 'because of the angels' means, but it pisses me off that Christians pass this issue off as just an outdated custom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 St. Paul says "women wear a head covering BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS" I don't know what 'because of the angels' means, but it pisses me off that Christians pass this issue off as just an outdated custom. Maybe the angels are attracted to womens heads the same way pidgeons home in on statues and freshly washed cars. INCOMING!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Why don't most women wear head coverings in church as Paul told them to?Each time I see one of those vile televangelist things, with the preacher bobbing up and down screeching and moaning, none of the women congregants was wearing any form of head covering, and worse still, their hair was short. Wasn't short hair a sign of being a bit of a whore in Biblical times? Or have I missed something out here? When they start moaning about me being gay, I enjoy pointing this passage out to them and watch them justify it all away. You're absolutely right. This bothers me too, that they take one or two verses and twist them against "them", while they look past other, very clear, instructions for their own fold of people. The reason it's easy to attack the gay community, is because they're not in Church. While the women are in the church, and they are a bit more assertive in todays society, and the men want peace at home. People only believe what they choose to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 The whole head-covering thing is what kills me about the legalism vs. grace argument. We've been 'freed' from the bondage of legalism - as long as we follow these rules... And why on earth would god possibly give a shit about something like hair length on women? Aren't there more important issues than that? It's almost as if whoever wrote the bible was putting their own opinions in it. I consider faith and believe just another form of opinion. Belief is just an opinion about things that can't be proven or validated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 The head covering thing looks biblical to me. "All Christians did it until 50 years ago" (a quote I've heard) St. Paul never says "It is our custom. Let's do it this way for now. It's kinda nice. Not a big deal. But, ya know...." St. Paul says "women wear a head covering BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS" I don't know what 'because of the angels' means, but it pisses me off that Christians pass this issue off as just an outdated custom. "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" It says that too. Of course if a man let's his hair grow, and it in fact grows long, it’s not really against nature is it? Sound's pretty damned natural to me. Likewise, the crap about women is arbitrary cultural crap that Paul tries to find some pseudo rationalization for. Do you insist on women keeping silent in church? That's not just nature, that's God very law that Paul cites as a current reason for them to keep quite in the church of men! Believe that do you? A little clue is hiding in those verses for you, if you're willing to look at it: It's all cultural because it was written by a man who only thought it was God channeling through him. Paul was not an oracle of God. No one is. Ponder that, and I look forward to hearing your deconversion story in a little while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 'Now then', the elder said to my friend, having set his scene - 'what are you going to say to your Lord when he asks you that?' How about, "How could you be so hateful and intolerant towards women that you want to torture them for all of eternity for having the wrong hair style?" Sheesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiantBear Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Ponder that, and I look forward to hearing your deconversion story in a little while. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Antlerman, I'm an ex-Christian. My deconversion story is here. Maybe it is buried. But I posted it about 6 months ago. The head covering thing along with long hair on a guy are a little weird. Christians not practicing them without a good reason pisses me off. "We are so modern and can keep the parts of the Bible that we want to." The womens' silence thing is just flat out evil. Peace, GiantBear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 One word - Hypocrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reach Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Paul was not an oracle of God. I would say to Paul, "Who died and made you God?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Antlerman, I'm an ex-Christian. My deconversion story is here. Maybe it is buried. But I posted it about 6 months ago. The head covering thing along with long hair on a guy are a little weird. Christians not practicing them without a good reason pisses me off. "We are so modern and can keep the parts of the Bible that we want to." The womens' silence thing is just flat out evil. Peace, GiantBear My apologies. I misread how you were stating that. I thought you were a current xtian and were critical of other xtians who don't follow the "clear" teachings of Paul. I have this thing for challenging them. I had been in one of those fundi groups who condemned women for cutting their hair. For that matter they also would frown sternly on them wearing pants, because the OT says "a woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man." I always tried to figure out how European style slacks were in the mind of Moses when he is alleged to have said that? Clue one that it was all nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ML13 Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 Chapel Veils were explicitly required in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Canon 1262.2 states, "Men should be with head uncovered in church or outside of church, when they assist at the sacred rites, unless the approved customs of the people or additional particulars of the circumstances call for something else; women, however, should be with head covered and modestly dressed, particularly when they approach the Lord's table." As we all know, the 1983 Code is a bastion of modernism; whereas the 1917 Code is a compendium of the Church's teachings and laws over the centuries. Not wearing a veil (or a dress/skirt) to Mass is simply a capitulation to the "sexual revolution" of the 1960s, which, of course, gave modern civilization those two great "pillars of evil", abortion and contraception. When we forgot to bring a veil, we used a handkerchief and then we use kleenex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 ...St. Paul says "women wear a head covering BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS" Maybe the angels are attracted to womens heads the same way pidgeons home in on statues and freshly washed cars. The Book of Jude references a verse in the Book of Enoch-- which was deemed too controversial to include into the NT. Why? It mentioned "the watchers", implying they are some sort of angels or spirit beings. That angels are watching us is not disputed by any Christians I've ever known. We have a different term for "watchers" these days, and it's not entirely flattering. Perhaps the angels (or "watchers") are easily aroused and God got tired of them getting spiritual wood looking at hot women in church, so He commanded the women to cover up so they are less of a temptation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 That angels are watching us is not disputed by any Christians I've ever known. I thought Luther disputed it at one time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 I thought Luther disputed it at one time. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I never knew him... And I never knew that about him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checkmate Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 ............... Perhaps the angels (or "watchers") are easily aroused and God got tired of them getting spiritual wood looking at hot women in church, so He commanded the women to cover up so they are less of a temptation. That's a distinct possibility. Remember in Genesis the "sons of God" got busy with the "daughters of man", creating giants and heroes in the land? (Gen 6:2-4) Human pussy is THAT good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyFeline Posted October 11, 2005 Share Posted October 11, 2005 One word - Hypocrates <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wait - when did ancient philosophers get dragged into this? I think you mean "hypocrites" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GiantBear Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 My apologies. I misread how you were stating that. I thought you were a current xtian and were critical of other xtians who don't follow the "clear" teachings of Paul. I have this thing for challenging them. I had been in one of those fundi groups who condemned women for cutting their hair. For that matter they also would frown sternly on them wearing pants, because the OT says "a woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man." I always tried to figure out how European style slacks were in the mind of Moses when he is alleged to have said that? Clue one that it was all nonsense. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Antlerman, No problem.... That pants thing drives me crazy too. Peace, GiantBear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 And I never knew that about him. Well, I've read it somewhere, but maybe it was just a rumor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts