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

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

[yukinoomoni.livejournal.com]

"Paul says that Christ is the head of every man and man is the head of a woman."

That is what is being said, here. It has nothing to do with being different traits to a relationship to make things work smoothly.

Re: Some Context

[(Anonymous)]

I see that as taking one verse out of context, which is contrary to the quest for truth.
If God created all that is, then we can see His traits in His creation. There are many things in science (the basis of which is questions) that don't seem to add up, but do. There are things that make perfect sense, and then still other complete mysteries. The complexities of God are shown in this, so why wouldn't that complexity also be in the Faith? It is the same. The trick is to look at the whole thing and reconcile the things that seem contradictory on the outside - to not be skeptical, but to be questioning on the quest for truth.
Tim has done this, and I agree with his conclusion on this point.

Steven

Re: Some Context

[yukinoomoni.livejournal.com]

These words were written by a man. It was his interpretation of what a man who was said to be the Messiah preached about. Most of what he says is backwards from what was recorded as his words.

Both of you really make me worry about the sanity of this generation. I don't understand this, and I don't understand how you live daily life.

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.

Re: Some Context

[yukinoomoni.livejournal.com]

The bible corrects nothing. It's a collection of fairy tales that a bunch of people find to be pretty enough to follow as a religion. None of what is within it is relevant to reality as we know it, especially when people go to extremes to keep us all in that day and age.

Where do I find my reality? My answers? From within. I've found more sanctuary and tranquillity sitting by myself quietly and just listening to my own thoughts than following a senseless regime based on words written by old, bitter men.

Re: Some Context

[(Anonymous)]

Your responses are so irrational and thoughtless, full of nothing but emotion. I am wondering if you are serious or purposely playing antagonistic. Your repetitive responses are void of consideration to what has been written to you with the hope of logical discourse. In any case, I cannot compete in such a realm.
My hope is for nothing but blessings upon you.
Tim

Re: Some Context

[yukinoomoni.livejournal.com]

Irrational? I'm the one who is on the side of logic, the one who firmly believes in thinking for myself rather than listening to the ancient words of some people who believe to have been spoken to my some unearthly being who has temper-tantrums. If that's showing some emotion, yeah, I'm going to show emotion - and I'm going to defend my right to feel.

I repeat what I say because the responses I get are thick with repetition as well. "We do this because of God's love." "We do that because it's The Way." Are you kidding me?

Re: Some Context

[liedownlovely.livejournal.com]

♥ you so much right now.

Re: Some Context

[zen-says.livejournal.com]

anyone that disagrees with the bible is a fool,,,, and if convenient enough, they will pull the read in context crap.... matthew, paul and the gang NEVER use read in context for applying prophecies of OT to Jesus, and why should we.....

Re: Some Context

[(Anonymous)]

If you are in the side of logic, please start posting comments with real substance instead of angry rants that do not add to a respectful conversation about belief and value systems. Angry rants reveal an inablility to handle the arguements being presented to you. And, in response to your question: No, I am not kidding. I honestly love God and wish to live His way. Hope you look "within" yourself and find a way to be o.k. with that. I for one, have no problem with you making a choice not to believe. You have every right.
-Stella

Re: Some Context

[(Anonymous)]

AMEN

Re: Some Context

[liedownlovely.livejournal.com]

If we compare comment sizes, yours are novel worthy. yukinoomoni's are about two sentences, max. Rants are much longer than that. So it looks like you are the one ranting here.

Sorry, it's semantics, but it's important all the same.

Re: Some Context

[yukinoomoni.livejournal.com]

You have no problem with what I believe, and yet you go out of your way to call me an angry, ranting person with no facts and no basis, and yet I was raised Catholic and know the Bible practically by heart. I chose to reject religion - Christianity in particular - because of its bigoted, sexist, and contradictory laws and terms. As such, I will state my opinions on the matter and will always do so, in hopes of enlightening a few people into thinking for themselves.

If you find solace in that, good for you. I honestly do not care. But when you start shoving it down people's throats, I start to care. Believe what you want, but don't try and get me to believe it, too.

Re: Some Context

[princessellie0.livejournal.com]

i think if we take a min and think, when you are in your most desprite time no matter who you are or what you beileve everyone reaches for God. Now if you truely do not beilive that there is a God of any sort and there is nothing bigger out there than why would a person do this?

Re: Some Context

[wolfpurplemoon]

People praying to God is not proof there is a god, and it's not at all true that 'everyone' reaches for God when they are desperate no matter what they believe.

Re: Some Context

[yukinoomoni.livejournal.com]

People pray for personal comfort. It's a kind of meditation, a way to sort out thoughts. Prayers go unanswered, but the comfort felt makes it seem like they're not, because mentally you're asking yourself big questions and forcing yourself to think about them.

Re: Some Context

[princessellie0.livejournal.com]

just a couriuse question, who do you beilive wrote the Bible?

Re: Some Context

[yukinoomoni.livejournal.com]

A series of people, who more or less found folktales inspirational.

Re: Some Context

[(Anonymous)]

For me personally, my prayers are answered. And under the threat of making people angry at me I have to say anyways, being raised catholic is nothing more than living a life of rules and canned prayers doled out by men on a power trip.As are mormons, jw's etc. You aren't encouraged to seek faith for yourself. A big problem in our society is "religion". You can choose to believe as you wish, but please don't lump every believer out there under your idea of a follower of God.-susan

Re: Some Context

[yukinoomoni.livejournal.com]

How are they answered? In words? Do you hear God speaking to you? Or is it a feeling, a "knowledge", that your prayers are heard and "answered"? I'm actually curious.

And I'm not lumping everyone. I've been doing religious research for over ten years - ever since I was 16. I've tried to find something that would work, something I could believe in, something I could follow and make myself better with... and the only thing that has made sense to me thus far is the considerably controversial perspective of Buddhist Atheism proposed by Stephen Batchelor.

The thing is, the answers I get from different people all pretty much sound the same, so even then it's difficult to separate the voices at times when trying to sort it all out.

And lastly: you knew that this was an atheist look into the texts of God, so why are you here? To try and convert? To antagonise, to call names? Or is it some kind of TWS for you?