1 Corinthians 9-11

[wolfpurplemoon]

Paul talks about whether he and the other preachers deserve a reward for leading the people to their salvation.

Paul warns his followers to avoid idol worship and states that pagan's are sacrificing to demons, and you shouldn't do that because then you may provoke God to his famous jealousy.

So yesterday I was reading that married men and women have equal rights to each other's bodies, but now Paul says that Christ is the head of every man and man is the head of a woman. And that a man should always worship with his head uncovered as he is the image and gory of God, but if a woman worships with her head uncovered then she might as well shave all her hair off. Also it is a disgrace to a man for him to have long hair but long hair is a woman's glory, thanks for the fashion tips Paul.

Comments

[yukinoomoni.livejournal.com]

Yeaaaah....way to be equal opportunist, Paul.

Some Context

[(Anonymous)]

All of these listed details reflect the religious cultural practices surrounding them at the time. Some hard things to realize from the text alone:
Headship here is dealing with the intended collaborative relationship, not rank or position, but function and people asserting in their own self-importance against order.
Temple prostitutes of other regional religions shaved their heads as a symbol. If a woman has her head symbolically uncovered, or a man with his covered, they were also stating their own self-importance over order.
Long hair on a man symbolized not keeping a promise. Elsewhere, Paul talks about how outward adornment means nothing, but instead what's inside counts. Jesus spoke this way as well, including fancy speech.

Tim

Re: Some Context

[yukinoomoni.livejournal.com]

So a woman who dared keep her head uncovered was akin to a whore. Nice.

Re: Some Context

[(Anonymous)]

No. Sorry. Not what was meant. A defiant attitude of the heart is at issue here. The issue is submission to God's order in relative disorder. The foundational question at hand is Will God be trusted?. It is a matter of trusting God even when it doesn't seem to make sense in the cultural morass around us.
Tim

Re: Some Context

[yukinoomoni.livejournal.com]

It's not submission to god. Paul is saying that it's a woman's place to submit to a man.

Re: Some Context

[(Anonymous)]

From original point:
Headship here is dealing with the intended collaborative relationship, not rank or position, but function, and people asserting in their own self-importance against order.

This is understandably hard to see outside of the cultural, historical context. It was common to make analogous points to point to the bigger picture. We can see from the whole, that what may be interpreted from the minute, is not so.

However, it is true, there are distinct roles because of the differences inherent of the created beings, in the Christian mindset. Though some have taken this to sexist viewpoints, the Bible would have all equal while being largely equipped better and worse for various aspects of physical life. The design is cooperative, not competitive. That it is not, the honest Christian would say, is only more evidence of need for Jesus who can set it right.
We don't have to agree, obviously. Honest perspective is all I offer. You were made special with purpose in mind. Any other view seems void of hope that lasts, to me anyway.

Some commentary articles from an earlier post:
http://www.mounthopebaptist.org/Religion%20&%20Politics,%20News%20&%20Media%20International%20Blog.html
http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?341

Tim

Re: Some Context

[yukinoomoni.livejournal.com]

There is nothing collaborative about it. God rules man, and man rules woman. Collaboration suggests equality. But there is none here.

Re: Some Context

[(Anonymous)]

Okay. How about this: I am good with aspects of business, structuring, and organization. My beautiful bride, however has none of those as her strengths. She is good in areas such as relationships, compassion, encouragement, and coalescence, none of which are my strengths (this is a greatly abbreviated list). Together we can accomplish a world more than either of can ever do apart. This is the cooperation I speak of. She's fun, I'm not. Together we have fun. I'm structured, she's not. Together we have far fewer bills (headaches). So, now we can have more joy with life as we work together with our strengths. Hers are now mine, and mine hers.
If we compete for top dawg, as too many marriages do, it all falls apart and are worse off than never having united.
We were made different. Some traits are more inherent in women than men, and conversely so. The given structure is to make the most of this if cooperation, and not competition, is the vehicle. If God is trusted first, egos are left out.
Unfortunately, this is not the model we see around us. But it is the model intended.
A single person, regardless of gender, answers to God alone. A married woman answers to her husband, but God first. A man is held responsible for the whole, and therefore, answer to both God and his wife. A man cannot wage success from being 'the man' (selfish or arrogant), and will answer for such. Both are to submit to each other for success as Paul will later say in another letter.
Love... real, true, and honest love (there is not to be another kind) is the key to all things. Be well.

Tim

Re: Some Context

[(Anonymous)]

BTW: Religion hasn't the true answers we all seek. As you may have noticed, I place no stock in the organized, either.
My opinion:
To the Atheist, the answer is purpose (at least it was for me).
To the religionist, the answer is control (personal or corporate).
To the Agnostic, it is - absolutely! (often also for the Atheist).
The religionist is hunting the wrong prey. The true Atheist has all but given up. Love answers all the real questions at the root. If Nietsche's rose colored glasses were tinted with love, it would all make sense. Instead, ours are tainted with the brokenness of our experiences. The bible stands in contrast to this, though we most often view it only from our comfortable perspectives. Seek to understand. Emotions cloud the vision.

[princessellie0.livejournal.com]

there is a guy who did a documentary to see if the stories in the Bible was true, he too did not belive, I think it is called Case for Christ, at the end of his research he belived. might be something worth watching!

[yukinoomoni.livejournal.com]

I've heard of this before, and it seems to me a genuine case of immersing yourself in something for so long that you start to believe in it.

[princessellie0.livejournal.com]

that may very well be, but if your going into something with doubt and looking to discredit something then dont you look for every possible way to prove that its not true?

[yukinoomoni.livejournal.com]

Logically, yes. I honestly think that if you're easily susceptible and vulnerable and do enough research for something, you'll succumb to it.

[princessellie0.livejournal.com]

Not to sound like im trying to argue with you, but if someone tells you a lie, and you want to know for sure that they are lieing, lets say you think your spouse is cheating on you. So you check out their allabys, and they seem to check out, but still you dont beilive them, you dig and dig tell you know your wright or you have ample proof that they were being honest right? Unless you just dont want to hear the truth.

[yukinoomoni.livejournal.com]

Okay, I just did some research on the guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Strobel) who wrote this book, and I find that in this case, you answered your own question with your factious answer of "Unless you just don't want to hear the truth." The guy is a creationist. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism) That's a red flag all in itself. The summaries of his books declare that he only interviews the Christian sides of things, and not the atheist sides.

I'm not saying that Jesus didn't exist, however. I just don't think he was magical. I find Strobel a sad case of misguidance, finding comfort in something that no longer applies to the real world. There's no indication or revelation of his personal life, so I can't speculate.

[princessellie0.livejournal.com]

so if you don't beiveive in God what do you beiveive in?
on a side note just because I was raised christain and have allways known him. What's the big deal with beibeiving in something that says you live forever in heaven when the alteritive of if your wrong and there is a God then you go to hell? Wouldn't it be more logical to go to heven and not hell just incase?

[princessellie0.livejournal.com]

you got nothing to lose if you believe and your wrong but you got alot to lose if you don't and your wrong right?

[wolfpurplemoon]

Well, I guess that depends on whether you waste your life ignoring the wonders that can be and have been explained through science and human endeavour in favour of the intellectually dishonest position of 'God did it'.

And anyway, how do you know that your religion is the one that is correct, because you've got a lot to lose if you've picked wrong.

[princessellie0.livejournal.com]

I have thought of that how do I know it's right, and my thought is all religions have a God and he knows who he is so if I'm praying to God then I can't be wrong

[princessellie0.livejournal.com]

is it not true that science is now looking at the Bible for answers now?

[wolfpurplemoon]

Answers to what exactly?

[princessellie0.livejournal.com]

i guess i will look that up for you and ill get back at you with that. :)

[princessellie0.livejournal.com]

we will all know the truth when we are dead. I'm not losing anything by trying to serve God it's not like he beats me and yells at me tells me I'm stupid if I mess up he is patient and understanding

[(Anonymous)]

Christianity at the core isn't a relgion. Its a lifestyle and a relationship. Jesus says plainly, "no one can come to the Father but by the Son". Does Father and Son point to relgion or relationship? Following Christ is the same as having a close mentor or a older brother/sister. You can talk to them about anything, learn from them and be friends. Many argue religion but I won't. Just like a relationship(because it is) you may not agree but difference with Christ is He isn't wrong when we don't agree. As far as the muslim religion(its not based on relationship) goes aren't they perverting truth? Christians know that there is no other gospel but Christ, however the muslim religion is based upon an angel revelation to Mohammad to the "truth". In the Bible Galatians chapter 1:8 says "Let God's curse fall on anyone, including us or even an angel from heaven, who preaches a different kind of Good News than the one we preached to you." The muslim religion started from that angel speaking to Mohammad and the Mormon religion(perverted Christiany) came about from an angel speaking to John Smith. Christians know that there are many perversions of truth but also which stands solid. God says in His word in the last day(referring to after Christ was raised) that His Son will speak to us and all will know God. He also says however in Hosea 6:4 my people are being destroyed for lack of knowledge. Some even translate it as " my people are destroyed because they do not know me"( relationship). Choosing not to know or even inaccurate perspective of God is what destroyed and marred the credibilty of Christianity(doesnt discredit just not seen as credible).With all I've just wrote its hard to discredit the Bible knowing it's orgin historically and the popular religions of today. The religions came after for power, esteem, and human creativity with inspiration from demons.

Ill leave you with one thought 2 Peter 3:9 " the Lord isn't really being slow about His promise, as some people think. No, He is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone destroyed, but wants everyone to repent." He just wants a real relationship with you.

^^^^

[(Anonymous)]

Hoses 4:6 my mistake