Are Muslims better Christians than Christians themselves?

[beenie]

I for one would REALLY appreciate it if we could get off the topic of head-covering. It belittles Islam into a one-faceted religion when it's really not. The Biblical reference to wearing a headscarf is about as ambiguous as it is in the Qur'an, hence some choose to wear the scarf and others don't. It's called interpretation. Move on now? Surely we can debate scripture that is far more meaningful than a headscarf.

To answer the OP, no, Muslims are NOT better Christians than Christians themselves, and suggest so is arrogant and self-serving. IMO. How can Muslims be better at something that they're not?

 

[Shermana]

I for one would REALLY appreciate it if we could get off the topic of head-covering. It belittles Islam into a one-faceted religion when it's really not. The Biblical reference to wearing a headscarf is about as ambiguous as it is in the Qur'an, hence some choose to wear the scarf and others don't. It's called interpretation. Move on now? Surely we can debate scripture that is far more meaningful than a headscarf.

To answer the OP, no, Muslims are NOT better Christians than Christians themselves, and suggest so is arrogant and self-serving. IMO. How can Muslims be better at something that they're not?

The OP seems to be about whether Muslims actually do what Jesus (and perhaps Paul) said to do. Not about titles or what they choose to be. I think it's quite a legitimate topic, not arrogant at all. It's a very serious issue: Do Muslims understand and apply what Jesus taught, even if they're not "Christians" by name, than these so-called "Christians" for the most part? By far and large, I say yes.

And the headscarf is actually quite an important issue, if you're interested in proving how wrongly Christians apply their own scriptures, it's not TOO ambiguous to the point that you can't possibly get the meaning, I say it's quite easily figured out.

 

[beenie]

Shermana, as a Muslim, I can tell you that the topic of headcovering is discussed far too much within our community. My post was directed more at Muslims because I really feel it is over-emphasized.

I never said the OP topic was irrelevant, but I am entitled to my opinion that Muslims thinking they're better Christians than Christians is arrogant of MUSLIMS to say.

It's late, if this makes no sense I'll explain better tomorrow.

 

[F0uad]

Shermana, as a Muslim, I can tell you that the topic of headcovering is discussed far too much within our community. My post was directed more at Muslims because I really feel it is over-emphasized.

I never said the OP topic was irrelevant, but I am entitled to my opinion that Muslims thinking they're better Christians than Christians is arrogant of MUSLIMS to say.

It's late, if this makes no sense I'll explain better tomorrow.

I would argue that its not really discussed by Muslims only by the so called Liberal Muslims living in America and i never heard a scholar come out and say that the Head-scarf is not a obligation. I agree that the Muslims are not Christians since Jesus(p) left for a period of time but according to Islamic understanding Jesus(p) was a Muslim so therefore hes teachings would reflect more of how we are practising our faith then what Christianity claims to do.

 

[F0uad]

Pray tell: Why should a Jewish Law, written for ancient Jewish women, pertain in the least to a post-modern, non-Jewish woman?

This is a cultural thing -- not a morality thing. covering one's head is a specific way of showing the hierarchy. Since, in post-modern America, men are not the heads of women -- both are co-equal -- covering one's head in prayer doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

So what you actually just said was that the scripture of Paul doesn't make sense, its a Biblical law and according to Jesus(p) each Law should be uphold till end of times or did your religion evolve or did you overgrow the scriptures?

They don't mean the exact same thing in context. So why would you glom them together as if they did?

I didn't say that Paul and Johns were the same thing please read more carefully, i said that one verse in John says to uphold the law and that in a other verse Paul says to wear a head-scarf while praying.

John isn't talking about cultural taboo. John is talking about sin. "Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness."

So that doesn't mean if you break the law you sin? Did i say that John was talking about Paul no i said that John said everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness nothing more, your the one who is gluing verses together not me i am simply saying Person A says A Person B says B therefore B should be uphold according to Person A since its a law.

You'd have to prove that not wearing a head covering is a sin (which would be difficult to do), and further prove that breaking cultural taboo is a sin (also difficult to do). The two have nothing to do each other. This is a clear case of eisegetical proof-texting, as I posited before.

Where did you proof it was a cultural thing? Its a Jewish Law as we can clearly see many Jewish woman still uphold this, Jesus(p) was jewish and was upholding those laws according the gospels. You can use the argument that the laws do not imply without telling why but that simply means your not following them. You have to say why these Jewish law do not imply any-more or have a interpretation on the verse that says otherwise.

 

[F0uad]

erhaps your english escapes you...you said that it was because of Eve that mankind were 'sent to earth'

but anyway, you've just stated 'there were no scriptures or laws back then' So basically what can we conclude from that? We can conclude that when God created the woman, he did not require her to wear a headcovering. And the scriptures (Apostle Paul) states that her long hair was her glory and her headcovering that God had given her.

If that is the case then lets forget the whole law and lets forget Jesus(p) since they did not exist in that time.

So why must we cover our true headcovering as given us by God? Are not the things God gives us more valuable then the material things made by men....and since when do mans law overide Gods laws?

Its according to Jewish law (God's Law) if you read a couple of previous pages you would come to the same conclusion, if that is the case why not walk naked on street? See how your arguments make no sense.. Its counter-productive.

I personally think its for the weakness of man.

no, that is not what the scriptures say. They say that Eve was deceived by the serpent, and Adam chose to disobey knowing he was disobeying.
1Timothy 2:14 Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived

I actually meant what the Church teaches people. Ok lets read 1 Timothy 2:

7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Where does that Chapter say that Adam(p) was disobeying hes Adam(p) did disobey since God ordered them both not to eat but the Church clearly teaches that the serpent deceived Eve(p) and Eve deceived Adam(p) and just look how womans are pictured in the whole Chapter its disgusting.

that creed does not come from the holy bible. This is the problem with 'other' scriptures... they contradict what the bible says so why should I accept them over the bible? The bible is from the true God, he does not contradict himself, nor does he teach lies.

Ok so the Church is wrong and your right?
So your saying why should i follow the bible because it contradicts itself or are we talking about the Quran now.. your last statement is very bold

what you dont understand is that it is only in the context of 'teaching in the congregation' that a woman must wear one. Even muslim women take their head scarves off in their own homes... so why do they do that if they must always wear one?

Where did i say they should wear always one? No-where i said that Paul said: while praying and nothing else hence the Timothy verse gives the same assumption, the Jewish law says to wear them in Public-Places like Muslims woman do now at least the majority does.


O and sorry for the English i am typing this on a cellphone.

 

[Doulos]

The basic pretense here is simple:

Does covering your head,
or abstaining from alchohol,
or avoiding a certain food...

make you clean before God?


Is what man does with his outside important to God?
Or the cleanliness of one's heart?

"The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
(1 Samuel 16:7)


Outward appearances and practices have merit if they reflect a clean heart underneath. But man cannot see the heart.

 

[F0uad]

The basic pretense here is simple:

Does covering your head,
or abstaining from alchohol,
or avoiding a certain food...

make you clean before God?


Is what man does with his outside important to God?
Or the cleanliness of one's heart?

"The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
(1 Samuel 16:7)


Outward appearances and practices have merit if they reflect a clean heart underneath. But man cannot see the heart.

So we should forget the law?

I mean Jesus(p) told us to follow it.. but if you say so..

 

[sojourner]

So what you actually just said was that the scripture of Paul doesn't make sense, its a Biblical law and according to Jesus(p) each Law should be uphold till end of times or did your religion evolve or did you overgrow the scriptures?

Jesus wasn't talking about laws Paul laid down for women in Corinth. Paul came after Jesus.

I didn't say that Paul and Johns were the same thing please read more carefully, i said that one verse in John says to uphold the law and that in a other verse Paul says to wear a head-scarf while praying.

and the one has not one iota to do with the other. You've glommed together two disparate texts, and tried to claim that Jesus said that women ought to wear head gear. That claim is both patently and obviously WRONG.

So that doesn't mean if you break the law you sin?

Not necessarily. If the law told me to drown kittens, and I drowned kittens, I'd be sinning.

i am simply saying Person A says A Person B says B therefore B should be uphold according to Person A since its a law.

Yeah, except that we're talking about two different sets of laws, one of which is not binding.

Where did you proof it was a cultural thing? Its a Jewish Law as we can clearly see many Jewish woman still uphold this

But again, it's not the kind of law Jesus was talking about.

You have to say why these Jewish law do not imply any-more or have a interpretation on the verse that says otherwise.

Asked and answered.

 

[Pastek]

To answer the OP, no, Muslims are NOT better Christians than Christians themselves, and suggest so is arrogant and self-serving. IMO. How can Muslims be better at something that they're not?

Yeah, I also found the title arrogant or let say awkward. But well, we all understood what he tried to say with this thread.

 

[F0uad]

Jesus wasn't talking about laws Paul laid down for women in Corinth. Paul came after Jesus.

Paul came after Jesus(p)??? They lived in the same time according the gospels and Christians... I have to admit i don't like Paul at all and i think he changed the religion but that is for a other thread.

and the one has not one iota to do with the other. You've glommed together two disparate texts, and tried to claim that Jesus said that women ought to wear head gear. That claim is both patently and obviously WRONG.

Where did i say that :sleep: why cant you just understand what i have said four times? I said ''Paul Said'' like 4times already.

Not necessarily. If the law told me to drown kittens, and I drowned kittens, I'd be sinning.

So then the law would make you sin? God''s law would make you sin?

Yeah, except that we're talking about two different sets of laws, one of which is not binding.

Clarify

But again, it's not the kind of law Jesus was talking about.

He said to uphold them all i quoted many verses that have the same conclusion, hence if you break one its like breaking all of them

Asked and answered.

Not true

 

[sojourner]

Paul came after Jesus(p)??? They lived in the same time according the gospels and Christians... I have to admit i don't like Paul at all and i think he changed the religion but that is for a other thread.

1) Paul was not part of the Xtian movement until after Jesus was crucified.
2) Paul's injunction to the Corinthian women came after Jesus.
Hence, Jesus could not have been talking about that particular injunction.

Where did i say that :sleep: why cant you just understand what i have said four times? I said ''Paul Said'' like 4times already.

Yes, and you keep saying that "Jesus said that we had to keep all the law," which, as I've shown you twice now, did not include Paul's injunction.

So then the law would make you sin? God''s law would make you sin?

According to Jesus, going hungry because one is busy "keeping the Sabbath" is a sin.

Clarify

Asked and answered.

He said to uphold them all i quoted many verses that have the same conclusion, hence if you break one its like breaking all of them

How could Jesus direct them to uphold laws that weren't in force yet?!
(Hint: he couldn't.)

Not true

Yeppers. Scroll back and read.

 

[F0uad]

Is this a repeating contest?

1) Paul was not part of the Xtian movement until after Jesus was crucified.
2) Paul's injunction to the Corinthian women came after Jesus.
Hence, Jesus could not have been talking about that particular injunction.

It was a Jewish Law as i said before Paul just confirmed it later on.

Yes, and you keep saying that "Jesus said that we had to keep all the law," which, as I've shown you twice now, did not include Paul's injunction.

Its not Paul Injunction but the Jewish law that was in force back then.

According to Jesus, going hungry because one is busy "keeping the Sabbath" is a sin.

What has this anything to do with wearing a head-scarf, if a head-scarf makes you ill or it kills you then certainly you shouldn't wear it but i don't see how this is a argument.

How could Jesus direct them to uphold laws that weren't in force yet?!
(Hint: he couldn't.)

They were since it was a Jewish law, Paul didn't make laws he confirmed some of them.

Yeppers. Scroll back and read.

If you call that a answer i will just leave you alone?

 

[Pegg]

If that is the case then lets forget the whole law and lets forget Jesus(p) since they did not exist in that time.
Its according to Jewish law (God's Law) if you read a couple of previous pages you would come to the same conclusion, if that is the case why not walk naked on street? See how your arguments make no sense.. Its counter-productive.

Eve did walk naked. So do you think she was required to wear a headcovering but ok not to wear clothing for the rest of her body?

If you think deeply enough on this point, you might come to realize that God does not require a woman to cover her head. He did not even require her to wear clothing.

I personally think its for the weakness of man.

well, we are all sinners and women have a tendency to take over the leadership roles of men. Eve went ahead and ate the apple without first asking her husband what he thought and what he would do...and for that reason Paul did not want women to attempt to be teachers or leaders in the congregations...they were to show their submission to the men by wearing a headcovering if she happened to be teaching or praying in the congregation. The headcovering was to be a sign of authority... a sign that she acknowledged the authority of the men.

It has nothing to do with sexuality.

I actually meant what the Church teaches people. Ok lets read 1 Timothy 2:

7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

nothing about covering the head in this verse... merely for a woman to dress 'modestly'. Whatever is modest in the society in which she lives, that is what she would wear. Paul wasnt designing a wardrobe for women, he was allowing them to dress as they wanted to, so long as it was modest. If the society you live in has a normal dress code of covering oneself in a shawl, then do that. If modesty in my society means to wear a t-shirt and jeans, then do that.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Where does that Chapter say that Adam(p) was disobeying hes Adam(p) did disobey since God ordered them both not to eat but the Church clearly teaches that the serpent deceived Eve(p) and Eve deceived Adam(p) and just look how womans are pictured in the whole Chapter its disgusting.

well that verse says that Adam was NOT deceived in Vs 14. So it is not saying that Eve deceived Adam at all. It is saying that Adam chose to eat, it wasnt because he had been tricked into it like Eve was tricked. So eve became a sinner unknowingly, but Adam became a sinner with full knowledge meaning he 'deliberately' chose to disobey.

Ok so the Church is wrong and your right?
So your saying why should i follow the bible because it contradicts itself or are we talking about the Quran now.. your last statement is very bold

the bible and quran do not compliment each other... the quran has teachings which contradict the bible. If the quran was the word of God, there should not be such contradictions because God does not contradict himself. The quran was written in the 7th century bce, the full bible was completed by the 1st century...you tell me why I should take the words of the quran over the bible?

would you accept a newly printed quran which contradicts the original quran?

Where did i say they should wear always one? No-where i said that Paul said: while praying and nothing else hence the Timothy verse gives the same assumption, the Jewish law says to wear them in Public-Places like Muslims woman do now at least the majority does.

christian women in my denomination are not leaders in our congregation, only our men take the role of teaching and leading the congregation. So we do not see the need to wear them in the congregation. However, if there has been need for a women to temporarily perform a role that the men would normally perform, then she does wear a headcovering. It really depends on the circumstance.

 

[beenie]

I would argue that its not really discussed by Muslims only by the so called Liberal Muslims living in America and i never heard a scholar come out and say that the Head-scarf is not a obligation. I agree that the Muslims are not Christians since Jesus(p) left for a period of time but according to Islamic understanding Jesus(p) was a Muslim so therefore hes teachings would reflect more of how we are practising our faith then what Christianity claims to do.

"Liberal Muslims living in America"? LOL, that's all.
As for wearing the hijab, I've quickly come to realize that just because a woman dons the hijab, it does not conclude that she's more pious. I've seen some act in such an atrocious way that it completely negates the silk on their heads. I've also seen some of the most gracious, beautiful, generous women who also wear the hijab....and the same is true for those who don't. Thing is, I'm not placing ridiculous labels on them, such as "liberal " or "conservative".

Yeah, I also found the title arrogant or let say awkward. But well, we all understood what he tried to say with this thread.

I understood it too.

 

[F0uad]

Eve did walk naked. So do you think she was required to wear a headcovering but ok not to wear clothing for the rest of her body?

If you think deeply enough on this point, you might come to realize that God does not require a woman to cover her head. He did not even require her to wear clothing.

Lol... :drool:

well, we are all sinners and women have a tendency to take over the leadership roles of men. Eve went ahead and ate the apple without first asking her husband what he thought and what he would do...and for that reason Paul did not want women to attempt to be teachers or leaders in the congregations...they were to show their submission to the men by wearing a headcovering if she happened to be teaching or praying in the congregation. The headcovering was to be a sign of authority... a sign that she acknowledged the authority of the men.

Your mixing your belief with reality what makes no sense i never asked Adam(p) or Eve(p) to sin for my behalf. So you belief that Men have the Authority over woman?
So you agree that in a Church while teaching or praying they should wear a head-scarf or can you clarify what your trying to say?

It has nothing to do with sexuality.

Did i ever make such statement?

nothing about covering the head in this verse... merely for a woman to dress 'modestly'. Whatever is modest in the society in which she lives, that is what she would wear. Paul wasnt designing a wardrobe for women, he was allowing them to dress as they wanted to, so long as it was modest. If the society you live in has a normal dress code of covering oneself in a shawl, then do that. If modesty in my society means to wear a t-shirt and jeans, then do that.

I never said there was a head-covering in the verse but you can interpret it as one, so when a secualir society teaches that mini-skirts and bikinis are ok to wear outside we should do so in the church also? Modest has it limits don't you think.. If we would follow that premises then People evolved God's law.

well that verse says that Adam was NOT deceived in Vs 14. So it is not saying that Eve deceived Adam at all. It is saying that Adam chose to eat, it wasnt because he had been tricked into it like Eve was tricked. So eve became a sinner unknowingly, but Adam became a sinner with full knowledge meaning he 'deliberately' chose to disobey.

I never said that Eve(p) deceived Adam(p) i said this is the teachings of the Church. The verse doesn't say that Adam(p) chose to eat it says that Eve(p) was the transgressor.

the bible and quran do not compliment each other... the quran has teachings which contradict the bible. If the quran was the word of God, there should not be such contradictions because God does not contradict himself. The quran was written in the 7th century bce, the full bible was completed by the 1st century...you tell me why I should take the words of the quran over the bible? would you accept a newly printed quran which contradicts the original quran?

Hmm this has nothing to do with the topic and i know i shouldn't reply on this but i will just to make you happy with all respect. The bible itself contradicts, the teachings of Christianity contradicts therefore the Bible is not reliable also you forget that Muslims do not belief that the Bible is reliable or trustworthy. The bible wasn't completed in the 1st century but in the 2nd century and later canonized in the third century hence the big time span made possibilities for many influences. The Original Quran what was compiled by Abu Bakr and later copied by Uthman with all the companions of Mohammed(saws) agreeing on even Abu Bakr himself is still being used directly coming from 15years after Mohammed(saws) fully compiled. I never said you should take the Quranic words nor did i ever use the Quran in my arguments. I was talking about the Biblical laws what if i was a Jew or a Atheist what would you say then?

christian women in my denomination are not leaders in our congregation, only our men take the role of teaching and leading the congregation. So we do not see the need to wear them in the congregation. However, if there has been need for a women to temporarily perform a role that the men would normally perform, then she does wear a headcovering. It really depends on the circumstance.

The verses says while praying also...

 

[Pegg]

Lol... :drool:
Your mixing your belief with reality what makes no sense i never asked Adam(p) or Eve(p) to sin for my behalf. So you belief that Men have the Authority over woman?

our beliefs should be based on reality...reality is always closer to the truth.

I believe that God gave men the lead role when it comes to teaching his congregation...all the books of the bible were written by men, so the reality is that God uses Men to direct his people. He used Noah, Moses, Joshua, Jesus...he always uses men because men have been assigned such authority.

It is that authority that women should respect because it is Gods will. This does not mean in every day life any man has authority over every women. A man only has authority over his own wife in everyday life. And a woman only has to submit to the lead of her own husband as Paul stated. She is not subject to every man on the planet.

So you agree that in a Church while teaching or praying they should wear a head-scarf or can you clarify what your trying to say?

it is only in the congregation of God that women follow the lead of all men...so only in religious setting would she be required to submit to the leadership of a man who is not her husband. And she would wear a headcovering ONLY if she was actually teaching or praying in the congregation.

Did i ever make such statement?

I never said there was a head-covering in the verse but you can interpret it as one, so when a secualir society teaches that mini-skirts and bikinis are ok to wear outside we should do so in the church also? Modest has it limits don't you think..

Yes of course it does and it is up to the individual woman to decide how she will demonstrate her level of modesty. No on has the right to tell anyone what they should or shouldnt wear. Thats why Paul merely stated the principle of 'modesty' which is moral sense, an expression of reverence, awe, respect for the feeling or opinion of others or for one’s own conscience and so expresses shame, self-respect, a sense of honor, sobriety, and moderation.

God wants us ALL to use our powers of reason...that means women must be free to use their own minds so that they can express themselves before God.

If we would follow that premises then People evolved God's law.
I never said that Eve(p) deceived Adam(p) i said this is the teachings of the Church. The verse doesn't say that Adam(p) chose to eat it says that Eve(p) was the transgressor.

but its not the teaching of the scriptures, and the church is not the authority on the scriptures...they dont even know the scriptures. What the churches teach and what the scriptures state are two different things.

Hmm this has nothing to do with the topic and i know i shouldn't reply on this but i will just to make you happy with all respect. The bible itself contradicts, the teachings of Christianity contradicts therefore the Bible is not reliable

the bible is very reliable...it is the church who have gone astray from the teachings of the bible. You think that the bible is wrong because the chruches teach the trinity or some other teachings, yet the things they teach are not from the bible.

The verses says while praying also...

not in personal prayers though... it is still in the same context of when prayers are offered in the congregation where others are present.

 

[bigbadgirl]

I really don't see any difference between either. Both have a holy book. Both have a founding prophet. Both say their religion is the one true religion. Both believe that their religion came from the same source. Both say there is only one "God". Both are responsible for widespread death and destruction. In both religions the "holy men" rake in the money and are exempt from taxes. Both religions think women inferior to men. Very little difference.

 

[F0uad]

our beliefs should be based on reality...reality is always closer to the truth.

I believe that God gave men the lead role when it comes to teaching his congregation...all the books of the bible were written by men, so the reality is that God uses Men to direct his people. He used Noah, Moses, Joshua, Jesus...he always uses men because men have been assigned such authority.

Ok if you say so this has nothing to do with the subject so i will leave this.

It is that authority that women should respect because it is Gods will. This does not mean in every day life any man has authority over every women. A man only has authority over his own wife in everyday life. And a woman only has to submit to the lead of her own husband as Paul stated. She is not subject to every man on the planet.

I would disagree but ok if you think so.

it is only in the congregation of God that women follow the lead of all men...so only in religious setting would she be required to submit to the leadership of a man who is not her husband. And she would wear a headcovering ONLY if she was actually teaching or praying in the congregation.

So you agree that Woman should wear a head-scarf/covering while praying?

Yes of course it does and it is up to the individual woman to decide how she will demonstrate her level of modesty. No on has the right to tell anyone what they should or shouldnt wear. Thats why Paul merely stated the principle of 'modesty' which is moral sense, an expression of reverence, awe, respect for the feeling or opinion of others or for one’s own conscience and so expresses shame, self-respect, a sense of honor, sobriety, and moderation.

Totally agree but Paul did mention the head-scarf of being a part of modesty and the verses of Jeremiah also promote modesty.

God wants us ALL to use our powers of reason...that means women must be free to use their own minds so that they can express themselves before God.

Agreed.

but its not the teaching of the scriptures, and the church is not the authority on the scriptures...they dont even know the scriptures. What the churches teach and what the scriptures state are two different things.

Again i agree.

the bible is very reliable...it is the church who have gone astray from the teachings of the bible. You think that the bible is wrong because the chruches teach the trinity or some other teachings, yet the things they teach are not from the bible.

Disagrees there are many verses that were incorporated into the bible hence the Revised Version and many more verses are coming to the light. Yes and no i think many people have been lied to by the Church but the Bible itself is not reliable since the Preservation took a time of 200years or longer and has been influenced by Jewish/Gentile scribes maybe even Paul if he wasn't a apostle and the Church Fathers.

not in personal prayers though... it is still in the same context of when prayers are offered in the congregation where others are present.

Since prayer is to god and not to man why shouldn't woman wear it on a personal prayer? Anyway you agree that it should be on a public-praying right?


As you can see i agree on the most of what you have said so please don't think i am here to criticise you or you way of thinking.

 

[bigbadgirl]

Eve did walk naked. So do you think she was required to wear a headcovering but ok not to wear clothing for the rest of her body?

If you think deeply enough on this point, you might come to realize that God does not require a woman to cover her head. He did not even require her to wear clothing.



well, we are all sinners and women have a tendency to take over the leadership roles of men. Eve went ahead and ate the apple without first asking her husband what he thought and what he would do...and for that reason Paul did not want women to attempt to be teachers or leaders in the congregations...they were to show their submission to the men by wearing a headcovering if she happened to be teaching or praying in the congregation. The headcovering was to be a sign of authority... a sign that she acknowledged the authority of the men.

It has nothing to do with sexuality.



nothing about covering the head in this verse... merely for a woman to dress 'modestly'. Whatever is modest in the society in which she lives, that is what she would wear. Paul wasnt designing a wardrobe for women, he was allowing them to dress as they wanted to, so long as it was modest. If the society you live in has a normal dress code of covering oneself in a shawl, then do that. If modesty in my society means to wear a t-shirt and jeans, then do that.




well that verse says that Adam was NOT deceived in Vs 14. So it is not saying that Eve deceived Adam at all. It is saying that Adam chose to eat, it wasnt because he had been tricked into it like Eve was tricked. So eve became a sinner unknowingly, but Adam became a sinner with full knowledge meaning he 'deliberately' chose to disobey.



the bible and quran do not compliment each other... the quran has teachings which contradict the bible. If the quran was the word of God, there should not be such contradictions because God does not contradict himself. The quran was written in the 7th century bce, the full bible was completed by the 1st century...you tell me why I should take the words of the quran over the bible?

would you accept a newly printed quran which contradicts the original quran?




christian women in my denomination are not leaders in our congregation, only our men take the role of teaching and leading the congregation. So we do not see the need to wear them in the congregation. However, if there has been need for a women to temporarily perform a role that the men would normally perform, then she does wear a headcovering. It really depends on the circumstance.

No offence, but it is strange how this post only mentions Jesus as a quote. Does your religion revere Paul above Jesus?