Are Muslims better Christians than Christians themselves?

[F0uad]

To wit:

Sorry, I don't read "hell" there. At all.

So the least of kingdom doesn't mean hell according to you? Why is it always refereed as hell in other verses want me to quote them?

Here:

Then tell me your interpretation and explain why i am wrong what i am only am asking all the time.

Fine. Where would you like to begin the whupass?

I hope your next respond will be more mature.

 

[sojourner]

Cows.. Jees go read the previous pages.

And when your done reading that:

John 1:3-4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guility of breaking all of it.

All I know is that no biblical writer told my wife to wear a head scarf. They may have told a group of ancient Judaic people to wear head scarves, but not my wife. My wife is not an ancient, Judaic person.

This is precisely what I'm talking about (to begin the whupass). You take some verse out of context, back it up with some other verses that have nothing to do with the first out-of-context verse, and insist that everyone abide by the rule you infer from that abysmal piece of work.

Do you not understand that John has nothing to do with James, or with the injunction to wear head coverings? do you not understand that the injunction was for a particular people in a particular place in a particular time and situation?

Holy Cow!

 

[sojourner]

So the least of kingdom doesn't mean hell according to you?

Not necessarily. When the writer wrote the bit about the head scarf, there was no concept of hell. So, in what way would hell pertain to not wearing one?

Then tell me your interpretation and explain why i am wrong whats only what i am asking all the time.

Matthew is a Jew living in a Greek city. He, in my opinion, ascribes this quote to Jesus using hyperbole in order to push his community to keep the law, given that they are Jews. but you have to weigh that against other writers in differing situations. For example, when Paul, preaching to Gentile Christians, says that they are no longer under the Mosaic Law.

You don't get to just quote something out of context and foist some moral something-or-other on it.

I hope your next respond will be more mature.

Ditto.

 

[F0uad]

All I know is that no biblical writer told my wife to wear a head scarf. They may have told a group of ancient Judaic people to wear head scarves, but not my wife. My wife is not an ancient, Judaic person.

This is precisely what I'm talking about (to begin the whupass). You take some verse out of context, back it up with some other verses that have nothing to do with the first out-of-context verse, and insist that everyone abide by the rule you infer from that abysmal piece of work.

Do you not understand that John has nothing to do with James, or with the injunction to wear head coverings? do you not understand that the injunction was for a particular people in a particular place in a particular time and situation?

Holy Cow!

So the specific verse of John wasn't speaking about upholding the law? So Paul wasn't saying that Woman should wear a head-scarf while praying?

First of all verses do not need to be in line of story if in one story its told to uphold the law and in a other story its also mentioned then why cant i use it in a argument?

Just using the words woopass gives a reflection on how you are and what kind of discussion you want to have, like i said i am open for different interpretations and good explanations so please start the ''Woop-***'' whenever you can. I am pretty sure that your understanding of the Biblical verses are pretty low since a person whoever has some knowledge about the biblical scriptures knows that the head-scarf commandment is inside Paul and not the gospels as you assumed.

Let me just ask you these two simple questions and hopefully you will be honest and respectable by answering sincerely without dogging them, do you belief that Jesus(p) was upholding the law and teaching hes apostles and followers to uphold it? Also do you belief that Paul wasn't telling that woman's should wear a head-scarf while praying?

 

[sojourner]

So the specific verse of John wasn't speaking about upholding the law? So Paul wasn't saying that Woman should wear a head-scarf while praying?

Paul has nothing to do with John. Paul was completely unaware of John. And to insist that the two passages have anything to do with each other is ludicrous.

Why don't you provide specific text references, so we both understand exactly what we're dealing with?

First of all verses do not need to be in line of story if in one story its told to uphold the law and in a other story its also mentioned then why cannot i use it?

First of all, yes they do, because that's simply good exegesis. Second, what you're doing is proof-texting. You've made a conclusion, then found some widely disparate verses to "prove your point."

Now. Do you want to discuss John or Paul? Do you want to address the head scarf thing, or the Matthew passage?

 

[sojourner]

I am pretty sure that your understanding of the Biblical verses are pretty low since a person whoever has some knowledge about the biblical scriptures knows that the head-scarf commandment is inside Paul and not the gospels as you assumed.

I didn't say it was in the gospels. You simply assumed that I thought it was.
Blind assumption is not a good start.

do you belief that Jesus(p) was upholding the law and teaching hes apostles and followers to uphold it?

I can't answer that until I know which gospel we're talking about. Which gospel are we talking about? you've mentioned two: John and Matthew.

Also do you belief that Paul wasn't telling that woman's should wear a head-scarf while praying?

I believe Paul was telling particular women in a particular place and situation that they should wear head scarves while praying.

 

[F0uad]

Paul has nothing to do with John. Paul was completely unaware of John. And to insist that the two passages have anything to do with each other is ludicrous.

First of all i made two premises one is that of John that tell us to uphold the law
and the second one is that Paul commands woman to wear a head-scarf while praying. This is not only my understanding of these passage's but also some Christians and Catholics.

Why don't you provide specific text references, so we both understand exactly what we're dealing with?

Corinthians 11:5-6 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.

Read the Commentary of Gill's exposition of the entire bible it clearly explains on how it was a Jewish law that woman didn't wear unveiled to public places when it explains these verses.

First of all, yes they do, because that's simply good exegesis. Second, what you're doing is proof-texting. You've made a conclusion, then found some widely disparate verses to "prove your point."

Thats a false statement you made many of these accusation and i disproved them all next time when i quote a verse disprove me. So when John tells us to Uphold the law in general and somewhere in Luke it tells us the excat same thing then i cannot use those verses to explain that we should uphold the law... Please clarify how this doesn't work in your opinion.

Now. Do you want to discuss John or Paul? Do you want to address the head scarf thing, or the Matthew passage?

When i quoted Matthew and John i was talking about the law when i was quoting Paul i was talking about the head-scarf.

So again my question remains (like i assumed that you would dodge it).
Do you belief that Paul didn't command woman to wear a head-scarf while praying and do you belief that John tells us not to follow the law?

 

[sojourner]

First of all i made two premises one is that of John that tell us to uphold the law
and the second one is that Paul commands woman to wear a head-scarf while praying. This is not only my understanding of these passage's but also some Christians and Catholics.

First of all, Catholics are Christians. Second, you made one huge assumption: That John directly informs Paul here. He does not. Which one do you want to discuss?

Which one?

It's up to you, buddyroe. Which would you like to discuss first? John or Paul? Either way, we'll need specific references in order to begin.

Thats a false statement you made many of these accusation and i disproved them all next time when i quote a verse disprove me. So when John tells us to Uphold the law in general and somewhere in Luke it tells us the excat same thing then i cannot use those verses to explain that we should uphold the law... Please clarify how this doesn't work in your opinion.

it doesn't work because you're making assumptions as to why each writer made the statement. Motivations were different for different writers, and the problems addressed were different, as well. Also, the theology of each is widely different, so similar statements may not at all be assumed to be so similar.

When i quoted Matthew and John i was talking about the law when i was quoting Paul i was talking about the head-scarf.

So again my question remains (like i assumed that you would dodge it).
Do you belief that Paul didn't command woman to wear a head-scarf while praying and do you belief that John tells us not to follow the law?

So again, my request remains (it has been dodged thus far).
Please provide references, so we know exactly what we're dealing with.

 

[F0uad]

First of all, Catholics are Christians. Second, you made one huge assumption: That John directly informs Paul here. He does not. Which one do you want to discuss?

I will forget your first sentence because that's like saying 1+1 = 2. No i didn't i didn't even spoke about Paul or John but about specific verses, i said that John said to uphold the Law and that Paul said to wear a head-scarf while praying nothing about that they knew each other.

It's up to you, buddyroe. Which would you like to discuss first? John or Paul? Either way, we'll need specific references in order to begin.

Lets begin with

Corinthians 11:5-6 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.

Read the Commentary of Gill's exposition of the entire bible it clearly explains on how it was a Jewish law that woman didn't wear unveiled to public places hence its still a part of Jewish law.

it doesn't work because you're making assumptions as to why each writer made the statement. Motivations were different for different writers, and the problems addressed were different, as well. Also, the theology of each is widely different, so similar statements may not at all be assumed to be so similar.

Your not listening are you.. I SAID IF THEY MEAN THE EXACT SAME THING IN CONTEXT! Come on read for once and try to understand.

So again, my request remains (it has been dodged thus far).
Please provide references, so we know exactly what we're dealing with.

Just scroll back to the previous page and see the John verse i quoted, the Paul verse is above.

 

[sojourner]

Corinthians 11:5-6 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.

Read the Commentary of Gill's exposition of the entire bible it clearly explains on how it was a Jewish law that woman didn't wear unveiled to public places.

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.

I SAID IF THEY MEAN THE EXACT SAME THING IN CONTEXT! Come on read for once and try to understand.

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

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

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.

 

[atanu]

However; Jesus (pbuh) was circumcised on the eighth day according to the Bible. All Muslims and to my knowledge Jews are circumcised, but many Christians are not.

It clearly states that eating from this animal is forbidden, yet many Christians do eat from this animal, however Muslims do not.

Plus, alcohol is also prohibited in the Bible yet many Christians do consume it, but Muslims are prohibited from drinking it:

The question remains: by following the above three -- to the point of arrogance-- are muslims following Islam? IOW, does following above three ensures following of Islam?

A final point, and the most important point is that in the Gospel of John, Chapter. 16; Verse 11-14:

---
Jesus (pbuh) here states ------. This man was the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh).

If we assume that the claim is correct, how that ensures that Muslims all are following Mohammed?

As a believer in God, people have always asked me am I a Christian or a Muslim, I always say to them, what is the difference? The original message is the same, man has corrupted it for other reasons.

That is a good message. But the OP gives just the opposite picture. For example, the OP appears to hint that all men but muslim men have corrupted the original message.

Muslims are following the Christian way of living, and so are to the Christians who follow the teachings of Jesus (pbuh). There shouldn't be a divide in these 'religions', they preach the same message.

Do you not imply that prophets and men of God preached the same message but only Muslims are following the message correctly?

 

[sojourner]

A final point, and the most important point is that in the Gospel of John, Chapter. 16; Verse 11-14: Jesus (pbuh) here states ------. This man was the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh).

I don't read that in John. At all.

 

[Oryonder]

Which ones can no one keep? Why does Jesus say to "be perfect" if you can't possibly be perfect? Do you think "perfect" has no conditional qualifying? As for "grace", this doctrine is heavily misunderstood to begin with in my opinion, Paul still tells you to work out your salvation with fear and trembling. Where is the grace for the unrepentant drunkards and fornicators who he says won't be going to the kingdom? Now as for "righteousness", Me Myself made a great example on another board: If you said "That's a tasty burger", and I said "Is that the tastiest burger you've ever had? If not, then it's not tasty!" , then the idea that no mistakes is necessary to be called "righteous" is wrong. Jesus said your righteousness must be "Greater" than the Scribes and Pharisees. That means that there is a qualified, quantified level of "righteousness" that can be measured. It's not all or nothing. It's measurable and comparable. The implication is that there is a measure to uphold in order to "win the race" and thus "Endure until the end" and thus "Strive for the narrow gate" to get into it;

He's pushing his Messianic community to follow the Law, that's the point. And Matthew is perhaps based on the earliest document that may have been written by these groups: Gospel to the Hebrews. Now if anything I get the idea that you're saying Mark AND Matthew are not necessarily accurate in their portrayals, is that correct? Are you saying basically that Matthew is wrong and Paul is right? That's like the Bizarro version of my own position!

I personally do not think that the message of Jesus was perfection. He may have said "If you want to be perfect then ..." but perfection did not seem to be required for salvation.

He forgives the adulterous woman. He talks about different levels in heaven in the sermon on the mount (severity of sin).

His message seems to focus more on the intent of ones actions rather than the deed itself. This seems to be the point of his comment on Adultery "To even look at a married woman with lust one commits adultery in his heart"

I do not think that the purpose of Jesus was to confuse people. A confusing message carries little weight. When something is confusing, to me it is obvious that some context has been lost. Perhaps the writer who put the story to paper the story did not get the complete story.

The point that Jesus was making in relation to " even looking lustfully at a woman" was that folks need to control their thoughts. Lusting around after your best friends wife is half way towards actually committing the deed. You have already committed the deed in your heart.

Jesus is saying (IMO) to pay attention to your thoughts ( a very eastern concept).

I had one fellow in another threat claim that this passage from Jesus means that he was against "promiscuity/pre-marital sex" in general. I disagree because he would not have used the term "adultery".

What I do not hear is that somehow if you go around thinking and doing bad things and then claim "but I have faith" it will do you any good.

Faith can perhaps lead one to do good or help one turn away from sin, but the point is not to have faith. The point is to think and act properly.

James spends a whole chapter trying to clarify this misunderstanding and he says 3 times in James 2 "Faith without works is Dead". In other words .. you can have all the faith you want but it is not going to help you if you do not think and act properly.

This misconception-misunderstanding of "faith" and the flawed doctrine "salvation by faith" was obviously becomming a problem such that James needed to address the issue specifically.

Where did this idea come from ? It certainly did not come from the Jerusalem Church led by Peter and James.

The flawed doctrine of "salvation by faith" comes from Paul, or at least was adopted by Paul. It is this flawed doctrine that James is speaking to.

 

[Oryonder]

Firstly, I have read both the Bible and the Qur'an so I do have a wealthy understanding of both scriptures.

Plus, alcohol is also prohibited in the Bible yet many Christians do consume it, but Muslims are prohibited from drinking it:


Proverbs 23:20f: "Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags."

Isaiah 5:11f: "Woe to those who rise early in the morning to run after their drinks, who stay up late at night till they are inflamed with wine. They have harps and lyres at their banquets, tambourines and flutes and wine, but they have no regard for the deeds of the LORD, no respect for the work of his hands."

These do not say "dont drink alcohol" (staying up late is also mentioned .. is that bad too ?)

Proverbs is about teaching folks to be wise to stay away from stupid things. It is talking about getting excessivly drunk and in no way shape or form means not to drink. Same thing for Isaiah.

"What sorrow for those who get up early in the morning looking for a drink of alcohol and spend long evenings drinking wine to make themselves flaming drunk"

Yup .. if you get up in the morning and the first think you do is look for a drink you are a sorry lot indeed.

Galatians 5:19–21: "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: ... drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."

Ephesians 5:18: "Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit."

Galations does not say not to drink .. it is talking about drunken orgies.

Ephesians we do not need to consider because it should not even be in the Bible. We have no idea who wrote it and it is not considered to have been written by Paul but even this passage does not say not to drink .. it says do not get so drunk that you do debaucherous things.

Now if there is any doubt in your mind you only need to look to Deuteronomy 14:26.
This is the Law about Tithing.

If you live too far from your place of worship/Temple to take your Tithe there. The household is to take 1/10 th of their produce and sell it. With the money they are to go out and by food and alcohol and have a big party to celebrate God.

"When you arrive, you may use the money to buy any kind of food you want—cattle, sheep, goats, wine, or other alcoholic drink. Then feast there in the presence of the Lord your God and celebrate with your household"

God is to be "celebrated" with alcohol .. it is not banned.

If you want a NT reference .. (which I do not know why you would give because Islam does not have much regard for the NT) Jesus turns the water into wine at the wedding. Nowhere does Jesus say "do not drink"

If you want 10 Translations and an explanation of the meaning of Deut 14:26 you can find it here. Notice there is no "alternate" translation as there are with some passages. The meaning is crystal clear.

http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/14-26.htm

Now go have a drink or five to celebrate God .. looks like you are behind in your tithing.

 

[Kerr]

So if the Bible says that women must cover otherwise they are to shave off their hair, then Muslims have not understood it's meaning to cover the hair?

My knowledge of the Bible is elementary at best, but if that is part of it then there is probably more to it then that. After all, most Christian women I have seen doesnt cover their hair (or have shaved it off for that matter). You would have to ask someone who knows the Bible to explain that (assuming it is there).

 

[sojourner]

So if the Bible says that women must cover otherwise they are to shave off their hair, then Muslims have not understood it's meaning to cover the hair?

First of all, "The Bible" is not its own authority. "The Bible" doesn't say that. Paul says it -- in fact, that's not even what Paul says. Paul says that if a woman doesn't cover her head in prayer, it may as well be like shaving her head. It's a cultural thing -- not a morality thing.

No. Muslims have not understood the meaning correctly, if that's what you're claiming they understand.

 

[Doulos]

These do not say "dont drink alcohol" (staying up late is also mentioned .. is that bad too ?)

Proverbs is about teaching folks to be wise to stay away from stupid things. It is talking about getting excessivly drunk and in no way shape or form means not to drink. Same thing for Isaiah.

"What sorrow for those who get up early in the morning looking for a drink of alcohol and spend long evenings drinking wine to make themselves flaming drunk"

Yup .. if you get up in the morning and the first think you do is look for a drink you are a sorry lot indeed.



Galations does not say not to drink .. it is talking about drunken orgies.

Ephesians we do not need to consider because it should not even be in the Bible. We have no idea who wrote it and it is not considered to have been written by Paul but even this passage does not say not to drink .. it says do not get so drunk that you do debaucherous things.

Now if there is any doubt in your mind you only need to look to Deuteronomy 14:26.
This is the Law about Tithing.

If you live too far from your place of worship/Temple to take your Tithe there. The household is to take 1/10 th of their produce and sell it. With the money they are to go out and by food and alcohol and have a big party to celebrate God.

"When you arrive, you may use the money to buy any kind of food you want—cattle, sheep, goats, wine, or other alcoholic drink. Then feast there in the presence of the Lord your God and celebrate with your household"

God is to be "celebrated" with alcohol .. it is not banned.

If you want a NT reference .. (which I do not know why you would give because Islam does not have much regard for the NT) Jesus turns the water into wine at the wedding. Nowhere does Jesus say "do not drink"

If you want 10 Translations and an explanation of the meaning of Deut 14:26 you can find it here. Notice there is no "alternate" translation as there are with some passages. The meaning is crystal clear.

(link deleted, see original post)

Now go have a drink or five to celebrate God .. looks like you are behind in your tithing.

Some good points Oryondor,

Might I add:
"Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses."
(1 Timothy 5:23)

All of this reflects that:
"For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving"
(1 Timothy 4:4)

In critiquing Paul or other New Testament writers, might I remind Muslims that they are not like the Companions of Mohammed (saw). The New Testament writers were not given a 'message' from Jesus to pass on, they were given the Holy Spirit of God so that:
"...when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth."
(John 16:13)

They are not Companions, they are Apostles. In other words they are Prophets of God.

It is written in Surat Al-Baqarah (2:283):
The Messenger believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in Allah, His angels, His books, and His messengers. "We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His messengers." And they say: "We hear, and we obey: (We seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys."

If you slander them and say they go against God's message because you listen to the innovations of Atheist scholars, then it is God who will judge you.

May God's peace be with all of us.

 

[Doulos]

My knowledge of the Bible is elementary at best, but if that is part of it then there is probably more to it then that. After all, most Christian women I have seen doesnt cover their hair (or have shaved it off for that matter). You would have to ask someone who knows the Bible to explain that (assuming it is there).

Hi Kerr,

It often helps to look at the text itself, since most often this will resolve the issue. When people try to assert "the Bible says this" without using the actual text, that's often a good clue that their view is biased.

1Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.

2I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.

3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
(1 Corinthians 11:1-16)
​

Other helpful notes are that Paul has written some things with the preface, "I say this (I, not the Lord)." (example from 1 Corinthians 7:12)

In other words, sometimes he's giving his own interpretation of God's teaching. This does not mean these are wrong, but it does mean that these are sometimes cultural adaptations of Godly teachings.

Is this one of those cases? I'll let the text speak for itself.

May God guide all those who read it with His wisdom.

 

[truth_seeker01]

Though I do Believe that the verse turn the other cheek has been horribly taken out of cotext, I too have read both books and I don't remember yashua ever commanding a physical war on opposers of his or any other teachings (otherwise known as infidels). Furthermore, I still fail to understand how the prophet Mohamed can say that mary was a virgin, yet denies Yashua as the son of Yaweh. What was the other strand of DNA composed of. Also a prophet, unlike others, heard directly from the creator himself. They where not squeezed by angels.

 

[Pegg]

Your logic escapes me, there was only one-man and there were no scriptures or laws back then at-least not mentioned in the scripture.

The Bible directly commands it so what are you arguing?

perhaps 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.

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?

The Biblical teaching is that Eve(p) deceived Adam(p) its not my teaching or the Islamic teachings.

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 agree that Mankind were created for earth and its not a punishment but did you never heard of the creed that because of Eve(p) sinned (deceived adam[p]) therefore we all are sinners and that only Jesus(p) can take away the sin for us this idea is supported by many Christians.

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.

I have to ask can you stop dogging and running away from the Verses that tells us clear to wear a head-scarf..

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?