Freethought & Rationalism Archive

NobleSavage · 09-25-2004, 09:35 AM

Does anyone know, I’m curious, how your garden variety Christian fundie accounts for the fact that Paul, in 1 Corinthians, requires that women must cover their heads in church?

The vast majority of bible literalists that I've encountered do not require women to cover their heads in church. How do they explain this away?

Am I making an incorrect interpretation of:

11:5

Quote:

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

It seems to be ok if they shave their head.

11:6

Quote:

For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

christ-on-a-stick · 09-25-2004, 09:54 AM

Sure, it's called "Oh, that was just a cultural more, not like the really important stuff like misogny which shall live through the ages".

Pardon the flippancy, but without making a treatise on the topic (maybe later), it's been my impression that this embodies the pick-and-choose attitude of many modern-day fundies. (For the love of cheese, my superfundy aunt has both short hair and pierced ears but still sings the praises of feminine submission. How do you spell c-o-n-v-e-n-i-e-n-t?) :banghead:

Fortuna · 09-25-2004, 10:17 AM

As I understand it, the Roman Catholics at one time did indeed require (or maybe just suggest) that women wore veils or hats while in church. And of course their veil became a fashion statement for many of them (does it match the shoes, blouse, etc).

My guess on this is that, at the time of Paul, a (or some) womans hair had some sort of sexually suggestive association. Comparitively, in modern times, we might say it was equivalent to a low cut blouse.

Not intending to derail the topic, but what I find more interesting about this verse is the idea that women can "prophesize". What does Paul mean by this ? That women can predict the future, receive revelation, etc ? And did she have to only discuss the prophecizing with her husband ? What about un-married women ?

NobleSavage · 09-25-2004, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fortuna

As I understand it, the Roman Catholics at one time did indeed require (or maybe just suggest) that women wore veils or hats while in church. And of course their veil became a fashion statement for many of them (does it match the shoes, blouse, etc).

If I'm not mistaken, some sects of Catholicism still require this. I remember reading about that nut-job Mel Gibson, and supposedly his brand of Catholicism requires that women's heads be veiled.

Magdlyn · 09-26-2004, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NobleSavage

If I'm not mistaken, some sects of Catholicism still require this. I remember reading about that nut-job Mel Gibson, and supposedly his brand of Catholicism requires that women's heads be veiled.

That would be the folks that call themselves Traditional Catholics, who reject the ruling of Vatican II (1964?), and think the present Pope, while legit, is in error.

I do not know specifically the ruling on headcoverings for women in Vat II, if any.

09-25-2004, 10:17 AM	#3
Fortuna Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 293	hmmm. As I understand it, the Roman Catholics at one time did indeed require (or maybe just suggest) that women wore veils or hats while in church. And of course their veil became a fashion statement for many of them (does it match the shoes, blouse, etc). My guess on this is that, at the time of Paul, a (or some) womans hair had some sort of sexually suggestive association. Comparitively, in modern times, we might say it was equivalent to a low cut blouse. Not intending to derail the topic, but what I find more interesting about this verse is the idea that women can "prophesize". What does Paul mean by this ? That women can predict the future, receive revelation, etc ? And did she have to only discuss the prophecizing with her husband ? What about un-married women ?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-25-2004, 09:54 AM	#2
christ-on-a-stick Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Durango, Colorado Posts: 7,116	Sure, it's called "Oh, that was just a cultural more, not like the really important stuff like misogny which shall live through the ages". Pardon the flippancy, but without making a treatise on the topic (maybe later), it's been my impression that this embodies the pick-and-choose attitude of many modern-day fundies. (For the love of cheese, my superfundy aunt has both short hair and pierced ears but still sings the praises of feminine submission. How do you spell c-o-n-v-e-n-i-e-n-t?) :banghead:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.