@FBM,
Quote:No need to wait. This is a smooth piece of work, but it's nonetheless ad hoc rationalization.
Quote:Quote from Ahmo5:
"the most bothering I can think of at the moment is in Corinthians where it states that the head of a woman is a man and the head of a man is Christ."
Leadfoot replied:
That concept is indeed bothersome and I fought against it for most of my life. It implied to me that women are somehow less than men and I wanted to place men and women on equal footing in every possible way. But ultimately I was forced by reality that there is something that inherently guides women to want a man to take the lead in some things. Dancing might be an example. But in allowing a man to take this role in no way diminishes the woman in any form or fashion.
If the way anyone interprets the man's role does that, they have adulterated whatever the factor is (I don't have a name for it). The prime example might be as Islam has used it but there are 'Christian' religions who are equally at fault.
FBM requested non-ad hoc explanation about the following scripture:
Quote:
1 Corinthians 11:3-10King James Version (KJV)
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 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.
6 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.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
Will give it a try. Not easy in isolation because after all, my contention is that the whole thing has to make sense rather than isolated passages or 'ad hoc' as you say.
To make sense of this passage the background of the church at Corinth should be considered. This church was among the most messed up at the time. They had interpreted 'the truth shall set you free' as being free of all rules, order, restraint, etc. They were the hippy church of that day. Not that believers should be rigid followers of a list of laws but if you believe the whole 'God' story then obviously you have to accept that there is an intended order to things.
Other churches he wrote to had erred in the opposite way and gone totally legalistic and he scolded them for that. This doesn't make the things he wrote contradictory. They addressed different people and problems.
Here Paul is trying to re-establish some appropriate order in the Corinthian church. The head covering thing was the symbol of some of that order in those days and culture. The problem we all have is the use of it and the principle behind it to subjugate women.
I can only explain it by metaphor. The relationship between a man and woman in a relationship is like that of pilot and copilot in an airplane. They are equally qualified to fly the plane but someone has to be 'the captain' and decide who is to be at the controls at any given time. If they both try to take the controls it would be a disaster. It is the responsibility of the captain to divide the responsibility of flying the plane appropriately. If he is a 'control freak' and only lets go of the controls when he needs to piss, the copilot will feel disrespected, un needed, resentful, etc. If the pilot abrogates his authority and has the copilot do all the work while he relaxes and sips coffee, the copilot will feel used and taken advantage of.
The head covering in those days was just the 'insignia' on her uniform acknowledging her 'rank' as copilot and her partner's rank as pilot. It didn't mean she was incompetent to fly the plane.
Why did God make the man the default pilot? I don't know, but it seems to be the natural order of things. Having been paired up with 8 different 'flight crews' I learned by experience rather than faith that unless this partnership has a designated PIC (pilot in command), it does not work.
As in all things, there are exceptions. My second ex wife and current business partner is a natural born pilot. She eventually married a man who was perfectly happy as copilot. And I'm not being critical of the guy.
Anyway, that's my take on it.
