• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Do all women need a "covering"? And what is a "covering"?

We are at an impass. I have shared my view
Y'all have shared yours. We have both put a lot of good info for people to consider. Lets get back to the topic at hand and what Samuel first asked and created the thread for. Thanks for the good debate.
 
I think a distinction can be made between the type of long hair Paul is talking about, and the long hair of a Nazarite vow.

The hair of a nazarite was almost always kept in locks. You didn't care for the hair the way a woman would. It wasn't supposed to be this meticulously kept beautiful looking head of hair. Your hair would end up thick and matted and overall ugly looking.

I think the wording is pretty clearly a physical covering/veil to hide or obscure the hair from view. There isn't a command to do so in Torah, so it's not necessary. I do find head coverings on women to be a very beautiful and graceful accessory.

I honestly wish I could fall in line with James' interpretation. I like it. But I just don't think it makes sense within the context of the passage. Paul makes too many clear statements about it being a physical veil to obscure the hair. Even bringing up the Angels.
 
James Pease said:
We are at an impass. I have shared my view
Click to expand...
This is correct. Until you are willing to read the scriptures and do so plainly, all you are sharing is your view.
James Pease said:
Y'all have shared yours.
Click to expand...
I for one have shared scripture, not my "view".
James Pease said:
We have both put a lot of good info for people to consider. Lets get back to the topic at hand and what Samuel first asked and created the thread for.
Click to expand...
We have both put a lot of info out there, some of it has been decidedly unscriptural and full of logical holes, and therefore NOT good info.
James Pease said:
Thanks for the good debate.
Click to expand...
It's not a debate if you refuse to answer anything or defend your position. This has not at all been a debate.
 
NickF said:
It's not a debate if you refuse to answer anything or defend your position. This has not at all been a debate.
Click to expand...

In an actual debate there are no questions from one team to another. The two teams state their cases and their rebuttals but direct interrogatories are uncommon and would typically be posed via the moderator(s).

In proper discourse it is also acceptable to refuse to answer someone else's questions. They are free to ask a question and you are free to respond or not as you see fit. Or someone might ask five questions and you only answer three.

It is not evasive to refuse to answer a question. It is evasive to answer a question with babble or meaningless rhetoric.

In any case you are free to ask a question and the other party is free to refuse to answer the question.
 
James Pease said:
We are at an impass. I have shared my view
Y'all have shared yours. We have both put a lot of good info for people to consider. Lets get back to the topic at hand and what Samuel first asked and created the thread for. Thanks for the good debate.
Click to expand...
And this is the debate the thread was created for. This is the passage that talks about covering. If we don’t talk about this one then we don’t talk about covering.
 
Now is a good point to stop and remember that this issue of headcovering is a deeply meaningful and important one to a significant number of women on the forum, and not just my wife.

This may be a fun debate for some of the men and lord knows we’ve all tried to be clever with varying degrees of success and failure, but this issue is the jumping off point in to submission for these women. When they took on this symbol their whole outlook changed. We might hear from some of them if we don’t make them think they’re going to be eviscerated for speaking up.

Make your point, come after me if you have the stones but let’s stow the petty meanness. It’s one thing to say you don’t think that’s what the verse is referring too, it’s quite another to start mocking the women who do it.

@windblown ‘s right @Luke S , your meme with the bucket was targeted at women who headcover, not the interpretation of the passage. It’s more bothersome because no one knows you, you didn’t participate in the debate and just started copying what other men had already done. Yes she’s my wife, yes I’m white knighting and in this particular instance it’s warranted.
 
I by no means mean offense to y'all, @The Revolting Man and @windblown . Personally, I don't care if y'all wear head coverings in your house. If it reminds the woman to be submissive in a godly way, then go for it, it's edifying to you. But, I'm going to point out the flaws in y'all's arguments. Yes, I played the lurker and came in a bit after the fact, but let's have at it --

What are the biblical parameters of a head covering? How much of your head has to be covered? Does it have to be a scarf? Does a cowboy hat count? What about a yamaca? If the man can't take something off of his head, are all of his prayers shameful? Do you think Eve walked around the Garden with a handful of spring mix in her hair? Can I pray if my head is in a cast for medical reasons? Again, I'm not mocking y'all for covering, I'm mocking y'all's view cause to me it seems rather silly.

Honestly, I find that the women here who do wear head coverings tend to be admirable women because they tend to be submissive wives to their husbands. If I went with requiring them, I'd go with flower garlands instead of scarves, cause those are pretty -- but I don't even know if that would qualify as a covering by y'all's standards.

The thing is, if you're taking the stance that the women who don't wear head cloths are to be ashamed of praying, then that would indict many of the women here as well. So, I'll challenge your view -- what's wrong with the bucket? It's in the context of prayer, which is what the debate is about, not about personal appearance and not about submission.
 
Luke S said:
I by no means mean offense to y'all, @The Revolting Man and @windblown . Personally, I don't care if y'all wear head coverings in your house. If it reminds the woman to be submissive in a godly way, then go for it, it's edifying to you. But, I'm going to point out the flaws in y'all's arguments. Yes, I played the lurker and came in a bit after the fact, but let's have at it --

What are the biblical parameters of a head covering? How much of your head has to be covered? Does it have to be a scarf? Does a cowboy hat count? What about a yamaca? If the man can't take something off of his head, are all of his prayers shameful? Do you think Eve walked around the Garden with a handful of spring mix in her hair? Can I pray if my head is in a cast for medical reasons? Again, I'm not mocking y'all for covering, I'm mocking y'all's view cause to me it seems rather silly.

Honestly, I find that the women here who do wear head coverings tend to be admirable women because they tend to be submissive wives to their husbands. If I went with requiring them, I'd go with flower garlands instead of scarves, cause those are pretty -- but I don't even know if that would qualify as a covering by y'all's standards.

The thing is, if you're taking the stance that the women who don't wear head cloths are to be ashamed of praying, then that would indict many of the women here as well. So, I'll challenge your view -- what's wrong with the bucket? It's in the context of prayer, which is what the debate is about, not about personal appearance and not about submission.
Click to expand...
The text doesn’t define the head covering so neither do I. Why would the man have to take something off if nothing was on? That’s just nonsensical.

In fact all of these objections are arguments from absurdity. Don’t be absurd. If you can’t argue from the text then you need to admit that you’re the one that is being silly.

You clearly haven’t engaged with the idea or the passage. Are you sure you’re ready to do this in public?

I cast no aspersions against how any other man runs his home. I’ll say this though, something about praying and head covering can be shameful under certain circumstances. It behoove you to know what it is. Right now you seem only interested in what it’s not.

The bucket meme was not only not funny, clever or original; it was directly insulting (some would say very insulting) to the women who head cover. You mocked them and the practice by equating them with irrational and unattractive women. You very clearly said that women who headcover are stupid and heavily implied also ugly. Allegedly your problem is with the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11, not the practice of headcovering.
 
Luke S said:
It's in the context of prayer, which is what the debate is about, not about personal appearance and not about submission
Click to expand...
The context is 100% about submission. If a husband does not want his wife to wear one, she should not. He’s between her and God in the hierarchy.
Luke S said:
Honestly, I find that the women here who do wear head coverings tend to be admirable women
Click to expand...
Luke S said:
…if…women who don't wear head cloths are to be ashamed of praying, then that would indict many of the women here as well.
Click to expand...
I would suggest attending a retreat sometime to see how “women here” are in real life.
 
The Revolting Man said:
The text doesn’t define the head covering so neither do I. Why would the man have to take something off if nothing was on? That’s just nonsensical.

In fact all of these objections are arguments from absurdity. Don’t be absurd. If you can’t argue from the text then you need to admit that you’re the one that is being silly.

You clearly haven’t engaged with the idea or the passage. Are you sure you’re ready to do this in public?

I cast no aspersions against how any other man runs his home. I’ll say this though, something about praying and head covering can be shameful under certain circumstances. It behoove you to know what it is. Right now you seem only interested in what it’s not.

The bucket meme was not only not funny, clever or original; it was directly insulting (some would say very insulting) to the women who head cover. You mocked them and the practice by equating them with irrational and unattractive women. You very clearly said that women who headcover are stupid and heavily implied also ugly. Allegedly your problem is with the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11, not the practice of headcovering.
Click to expand...
I agree with the opposing side that the context of the passage is about authority structure. I cannot agree that a man with a hat on is ashamed to pray -- Yah's house is called a house of prayer, and His priests wore head coverings. I have no issue with Paul, since I see it as a matter of authority and headship in context of verse 3.

Besides that, clearly I've struck a nerve. Zec, I by no means with the meme meant to imply that a woman whose head attire is removed is immediately transmogrified into an overweight Hispanic woman shopping at Walmart. The purpose of the meme was to give a humorous illustration of the logic that "a woman can only pray while wearing a physical head covering" played out, by portraying a case where one would have to hurriedly cover her head with whatever was readily available if such logic were the applied. I have no beef with women who wear head coverings (I was just yesterday explaining to someone that Ukrainian folk dress is the most attractive folk attire for women, and they wear head coverings) and I have no beef with overweight Hispanic women who shop at Walmart apart from the fact that I was previously married to one. I nowhere called them stupid and nowhere implied that they were ugly.

We can discuss further our doctrinal differences, I had just assumed that most of what needed to be said on both sides had already been said.
 
windblown said:
The context is 100% about submission. If a husband does not want his wife to wear one, she should not. He’s between her and God in the hierarchy.


I would suggest attending a retreat sometime to see how “women here” are in real life.
Click to expand...
The context of the meme I posted was about prayer, I was not talking about the context of head coverings in general there.

And I have been to a retreat... I've met y'all both personally and enjoyed y'all's company.
 
Luke S said:
I agree with the opposing side that the context of the passage is about authority structure. I cannot agree that a man with a hat on is ashamed to pray -- Yah's house is called a house of prayer, and His priests wore head coverings. I have no issue with Paul, since I see it as a matter of authority and headship in context of verse 3.

Besides that, clearly I've struck a nerve. Zec, I by no means with the meme meant to imply that a woman whose head attire is removed is immediately transmogrified into an overweight Hispanic woman shopping at Walmart. The purpose of the meme was to give a humorous illustration of the logic that "a woman can only pray while wearing a physical head covering" played out, by portraying a case where one would have to hurriedly cover her head with whatever was readily available if such logic were the applied. I have no beef with women who wear head coverings (I was just yesterday explaining to someone that Ukrainian folk dress is the most attractive folk attire for women, and they wear head coverings) and I have no beef with overweight Hispanic women who shop at Walmart apart from the fact that I was previously married to one. I nowhere called them stupid and nowhere implied that they were ugly.

We can discuss further our doctrinal differences, I had just assumed that most of what needed to be said on both sides had already been said.
Click to expand...
Why is it so hard to accept that it is about authority and that authority is important enough to require a physical symbol?

Are there no physical symbols in the Faith? Is the a concept we’ve never encountered? Can tell things not be true at once?

The priest thing is silly. No one has done the homework to see if there’s anything there or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top