source

Islam must reform or it won't survive:Imam
Published: 8:33 pm, Wednesday, 29 March 2017 -

First he says:
Islam needs to reform itself of it won't survive, according to Imam Shaikh Mohammad Tawhidi from the South Australia Islamic association-

Then a few paragraphs later the taqiyya kicks in:

Imam Tawhidi claimed the holy Quran doesn't condone killing people who have left the Muslim faith -

'The holy Quran itself doesn't say kill, it says advise them to come back, and if they don't want to come back; don't come back.' -

What a load of crap:

qur'an 4.88: What is [the matter] with you [that you are] two groups concerning the hypocrites, while Allah has made them fall back [into error and disbelief] for what they earned. Do you wish to guide those whom Allah has sent astray? And he whom Allah sends astray - never will you find for him a way [of guidance].


qur'an 4.89: They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.

Pretty clear what the qur'an says about muslims who fall back into disbelief. (seize them and kill them)

We are supposed to take these sneaking prevaricators seriously?

Why not.  We are repeatedly told that Jesus Come Latelys are able over-ride or re-write the Word of God as it is set out in the OT.  Why would you deny Muslims the same weird voodoo?

Thats right moses - if any of those dastardly muslims suggests that Islam shouldn't be violent or intolerant - don't let them get away with it.

Heaven forbid we have peace loving muslims walking around!

They don't have to lie and say that the qur'an does not say to kill.

It most definitely does say to kill those that fall away from belief.

moses wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 4:36pm:

They don't have to lie and say that the qur'an does not say to kill. It most definitely does say to kill those that fall away from belief.

So does the Old Testament.

Aussie wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 4:41pm:

moses wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 4:36pm: They don't have to lie and say that the qur'an does not say to kill. It most definitely does say to kill those that fall away from belief. So does the Old Testament.

But Christians aren't acting upon it. Muslims are.

Quote:

Why not.  We are repeatedly told that Jesus Come Latelys are able over-ride or re-write the Word of god as it is set out in the OT.  Why would you deny Muslims the same weird voodoo? & So does the Old Testament.

The muslim didn't talk about overturning the command to kill, he lied and said it doesn't exist.

As for the N.T. overturning part of the O.T. that's what it is all about. The last perfect sacrifice, no more blood sacrifices, faith overturning inhumane deeds of the law.

So Christianity overturned the ancient Hebrew mosaic law.

moses wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 4:43pm:

Quote: Why not.  We are repeatedly told that Jesus Come Latelys are able over-ride or re-write the Word of god as it is set out in the OT.  Why would you deny Muslims the same weird voodoo? & So does the Old Testament. The muslim didn't talk about overturning the command to kill, he lied and said it doesn't exist. As for the N.T. overturning part of the O.T. that's what it is all about. The last perfect sacrifice, no more blood sacrifices, faith overturning inhumane deeds of the law. So Christianity overturned the ancient Hebrew mosaic law.

Yes I know that is what the Jesus Come Latelys say.  That is my point.  The 'Happy Clappers' can rewrite the 'Word of God'  (you know ~ the Christian God) at their whim, yet you deny today's Muslims the same right.

It's all bullshit as far as I am concerned.

moses wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 4:36pm:

They don't have to lie and say that the qur'an does not say to kill. It most definitely does say to kill those that fall away from belief.

The New Testament most definitely does say that women are inferior and must be subservient to men.

Yet I don't begrudge christian efforts to rationalise those verses and argue for a christianity that respects women as equals. In fact I welcome it.

Quote:

The New Testament most definitely does say that women are inferior and must be subservient to men.

Last time I asked you to prove it you quoted something very different to this Gandalf.

wow FD you think I'm bad at reinterpreting the Quran. I'd love to see you explain exactly how this isn't stating the inferiority of women and ordering their submissiveness to men:

Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
1 Timothy 2:11-15

the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”
1 Corinthians 14:34-35

For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair …For a man ought not to cover his head; since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
1 Corinthians 11:2-10

But power to any christian who rejects these commands.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 6:48pm:

wow FD you think I'm bad at reinterpreting the Quran. I'd love to see you explain exactly how this isn't stating the inferiority of women and ordering their submissiveness to men: Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. 1 Timothy 2:11-15 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair …For a man ought not to cover his head; since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 1 Corinthians 11:2-10 But power to any christian who rejects these commands.

Forgive me Gandalf but that does warrant one of these:

http://pliski.com/en/wp-content/uploads/dancing_leprechaun.gif

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 6:48pm:

wow FD you think I'm bad at reinterpreting the Quran. I'd love to see you explain exactly how this isn't stating the inferiority of women and ordering their submissiveness to men: Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. 1 Timothy 2:11-15 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair …For a man ought not to cover his head; since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 1 Corinthians 11:2-10 But power to any christian who rejects these commands.

Would a Muslim lie? Surely not.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11%3A2-10&version=NIV

For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off

It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head

From your own link, Effendi.....one which fails to address all of what Gandalf posted:


Quote:

1 Corinthians 11:2-10New International Version (NIV) On Covering the Head in Worship 2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. 7 A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels.

You really want to rest your case on that, Effendi?

Seems to me to be what the Exclusive Bretheran blather.

Aussie, can you comprehend what is happening here? Would it be fair to say that Gandalf started with a verse stating that women ought to have authority over their own head, and turned it into a verse saying they should be punished for not covering their head?

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 8:09pm:

Aussie, can you comprehend what is happening here? Would it be fair to say that Gandalf started with a verse stating that women ought to have authority over their own head, and turned it into a verse saying they should be punished for not covering their head?

I can read, Effendi.

What say ye, Effendi, about that passage putting women in their place, wot?

I know you can read Aussie. I am asking you if you can understand.


freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 8:09pm:

Aussie, can you comprehend what is happening here? Would it be fair to say that Gandalf started with a verse stating that women ought to have authority over their own head, and turned it into a verse saying they should be punished for not covering their head?

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 8:15pm:

I know you can read Aussie. I am asking you if you can understand. freediver wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 8:09pm: Aussie, can you comprehend what is happening here? Would it be fair to say that Gandalf started with a verse stating that women ought to have authority over their own head, and turned it into a verse saying they should be punished for not covering their head?

I understood to be bashing women completely until the very last and confusing sentence.

Aussie wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 8:16pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 8:15pm: I know you can read Aussie. I am asking you if you can understand. freediver wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 8:09pm: Aussie, can you comprehend what is happening here? Would it be fair to say that Gandalf started with a verse stating that women ought to have authority over their own head, and turned it into a verse saying they should be punished for not covering their head? I understood to be bashing women completely until the very last and confusing sentence.

Would you like to take a stab at what that confusing sentence is saying Aussie?

Not while it flies in the face of the many, many sentences which precede it.  That last sentence cannot be read as making a mockery of everything which went before it.

Do you really believe it does that, Effendi?

OK then, have a stab at telling us what the bit before it means.

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 8:33pm:

OK then, have a stab at telling us what the bit before it means.

Woman is subservient to Man.

It says men should uncover their head when they pray. Women should cover theirs. Have you ever been asked to remove your hat when entering an historic church Aussie? It's not exactly the same thing as building a religious empire on the back of the trade in female sex slaves.

Just in case you might be tempted to misinterpret it, or deliberately misrepresent it as Gandalf did, it follows this up by saying women should have authority over their own head.

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 8:44pm:

It says men should uncover their head when they pray. Women should cover theirs. Have you ever been asked to remove your hat when entering an historic church Aussie? It's not exactly the same thing as building a religious empire on the back of the trade in female sex slaves. Just in case you might be tempted to misinterpret it, or deliberately misrepresent it as Gandalf did, it follows this up by saying women should have authority over their own head.

.....and in the preceding sentences...tells women to cover their head.

Do you suggest that entire passage DOES NOT ASSERT Woman is subservient to Man?


Did you comprehend that very clear message, Effendi?

Aussie wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 8:51pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 8:44pm: It says men should uncover their head when they pray. Women should cover theirs. Have you ever been asked to remove your hat when entering an historic church Aussie? It's not exactly the same thing as building a religious empire on the back of the trade in female sex slaves. Just in case you might be tempted to misinterpret it, or deliberately misrepresent it as Gandalf did, it follows this up by saying women should have authority over their own head. .....and in the preceding sentences...tells women to cover their head. Do you suggest that entire passage DOES NOT ASSERT Woman is subservient to Man? Did you comprehend that very clear message, Effendi?

Yes Aussie, I did not miss that. See the highlighted bit.

Now, the verses in question:

1 Corinthians 11:2-10New International Version (NIV)
On Covering the Head in Worship

2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

7 A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels.

These are the three things that it actually says:

1) Men should uncover their head when they pray.
2) Women should cover their head when they pray.
3) Just in case you might be tempted to misinterpret it, or deliberately misrepresent it as Gandalf did, it follows this up by saying women should have authority over their own head.

Gandalf, where did you get this particular lie from?

Is there a new question in there Effendi, or am I just having a deja vu moment?

Effendi, do you agree that the passage you and I are discussing is clear validation of the proposition that women are inferior to men and is also ordering their submissiveness to men?

I disagree. These are the things it actually says:

1) Men should uncover their head when they pray.
2) Women should cover their head when they pray.
3) Just in case you might be tempted to misinterpret it, or deliberately misrepresent it as Gandalf did, it follows this up by saying women should have authority over their own head.

Nice irony in the thread title, BTW.

A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

It says 'glory of' and 'made from' and 'made for'. It does not say subservient.

These are the things that it actually says:

1) Men should uncover their head when they pray.
2) Women should cover their head when they pray.
3) Just in case you might be tempted to misinterpret it, or deliberately misrepresent it as Gandalf did, it follows this up by saying women should have authority over their own head.

Do you disagree with any of these three Aussie?

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 9:35pm:

It says 'glory of' and 'made from' and 'made for'. It does not say subservient. These are the things that it actually says: 1) Men should uncover their head when they pray. 2) Women should cover their head when they pray. 3) Just in case you might be tempted to misinterpret it, or deliberately misrepresent it as Gandalf did, it follows this up by saying women should have authority over their own head. Do you disagree with any of these three Aussie?

I can read, Effendi.  Why do you need my confirmation of what you too, and all have read?

Quote:

It says 'glory of' and 'made from' and 'made for'. It does not say subservient.

You can read too.  Great.  What do you understand those words to mean, if they are not synonymous with 'subservient' or similar term meaning that women are inferior to men, and ought be submissive to them?

Aussie wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 9:38pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 9:35pm: It says 'glory of' and 'made from' and 'made for'. It does not say subservient. These are the things that it actually says: 1) Men should uncover their head when they pray. 2) Women should cover their head when they pray. 3) Just in case you might be tempted to misinterpret it, or deliberately misrepresent it as Gandalf did, it follows this up by saying women should have authority over their own head. Do you disagree with any of these three Aussie? I can read, Effendi.  Why do you need my confirmation of what you too, and all have read?

I am not asking whether you have read it Aussie. I am asking whether you agree.

Are you bewildered by the possibility that we might interpret these verses differently?


Quote:

You can read too.  Great.  What do you understand those words to mean, if they are not synonymous with 'subservient' or similar term meaning that women are inferior to men, and ought be submissive to them?

They are the justification or explanation for the first two statements.

Interpret this, Effendi:


Quote:

A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 8:09pm:

Aussie, can you comprehend what is happening here? Would it be fair to say that Gandalf started with a verse stating that women ought to have authority over their own head, and turned it into a verse saying they should be punished for not covering their head?

Oh my, we are desparate...

From your own link FD...


Quote:

2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. 7 A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels.

FD where did you get this fantasy about gandalf "turning it into a verse saying they should be punished for not covering their head?"

Do you agree the phrase "...he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." - pretty plainly spells out the inferiority of women compared to men?

Care to have a go at explaining away the other two verses I quoted?

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 9:13pm:

I disagree. These are the things it actually says: 1) Men should uncover their head when they pray. 2) Women should cover their head when they pray. 3) Just in case you might be tempted to misinterpret it, or deliberately misrepresent it as Gandalf did, it follows this up by saying women should have authority over their own head.

Is that all it said FD? Sure you didn't miss anything, like you know, the bit about men being the glory of God and women being the glory of man? FD would you agree that completely omitting this part - the part that I actually highlighted as the key component of my point - is "deliberately misrepresenting it"?

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 7:59pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 6:48pm: wow FD you think I'm bad at reinterpreting the Quran. I'd love to see you explain exactly how this isn't stating the inferiority of women and ordering their submissiveness to men: Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. 1 Timothy 2:11-15 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair …For a man ought not to cover his head; since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 1 Corinthians 11:2-10 But power to any christian who rejects these commands. Would a Muslim lie? Surely not. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11%3A2-10&version=NIV For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head

Yet you didn't complain when Moses posted this:

"qur'an 4.89: They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.

Pretty clear what the qur'an says about muslims who fall back into disbelief. (seize them and kill them)"


Yet left this off?:

Quran 4.90: Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.

mothra wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 10:58am:

freediver wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 7:59pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 6:48pm: wow FD you think I'm bad at reinterpreting the Quran. I'd love to see you explain exactly how this isn't stating the inferiority of women and ordering their submissiveness to men: Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. 1 Timothy 2:11-15 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair …For a man ought not to cover his head; since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 1 Corinthians 11:2-10 But power to any christian who rejects these commands. Would a Muslim lie? Surely not. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11%3A2-10&version=NIV For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head Yet you didn't complain when Moses posted this: "qur'an 4.89: They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper. Pretty clear what the qur'an says about muslims who fall back into disbelief. (seize them and kill them)" Yet left this off?: Quran 4.90: Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.

The hypocricy of FD's this little spat is revealing is trully breathtaking.

This is actually quite an astonishing thing to find in a 2000 year old book from a supposedly patriarchal religion. Not only does it grant women authority over their own body, it also puts that authority above that of God. God wants women to cover their head while praying, but does not command or force them to. God knows women will decide for themselves what to wear.

I think there's something in that for all of us.


polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 8:02am:

freediver wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 9:13pm: I disagree. These are the things it actually says: 1) Men should uncover their head when they pray. 2) Women should cover their head when they pray. 3) Just in case you might be tempted to misinterpret it, or deliberately misrepresent it as Gandalf did, it follows this up by saying women should have authority over their own head. Is that all it said FD? Sure you didn't miss anything, like you know, the bit about men being the glory of God and women being the glory of man? FD would you agree that completely omitting this part - the part that I actually highlighted as the key component of my point - is "deliberately misrepresenting it"?

Not sure how you go from women being the glory of man to misogyny Gandalf. And certainly not from there to a comparison with Islam's evil treatment of women. What exactly are you reading into glory? If I left anything out it is only because I was sticking to the bits with an unambiguous meaning.

Do you disagree with any of those three statements Gandalf?

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 12:34pm:

This is actually quite an astonishing thing to find in a 2000 year old book from a supposedly patriarchal religion.

Actually no.

It turns out you are wrong on your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:10:


Quote:

n 1 Corinthians 11:10 Paul writes, διὰ τοῦτο ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους. "For this reason the woman should have [a sign of the man's] authority on her head, because of the angels." Here I will address the question of what the enigmatic phrase "because of the angels" may mean. Several explanations have been offered by scholars, but one explanation stands out as being by far the most commonly accepted. Briefly it is this: In Jewish tradition, and also in the early Church, angels are said to be present at sacred gatherings and sacred times, to watch over and to join with the saints in their spiritual exercises. Any serious offense against propriety during these sacred moments will stir up the disapproval of these angelic helpers of the saints, perhaps causing them to depart; and any good deed they witness will bring all the more aid from them.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/angels.html

and...


Quote:

11:10. Paul offered a third reason (the first reason was the divine order— God, Christ, man, woman, vv. 3-6; the second reason was Creation, vv. 7-9) why womanly insubordination in the church should not exist. Angels were spectators of the church (4:9; Eph. 3:10; 1 Tim. 5:21; cf. Ps. 103:20-21). For a woman to exercise her freedom to participate in the church without the head covering, the sign of her authority (exousia, a liberating term; cf. 1 Cor. 7:37; 8:9; 9:4-6, 12, 18), would be to bring the wisdom of God (Eph. 3:10) into disrepute.

https://bible.org/question/what-does-head-covering-1-cor-11-refer

A view that is complimented by the footnote in your own source - that you failed to mention (or more likely were too careless to notice):


Quote:

1 Corinthians 11:10 Or have a sign of authority on her

Which makes far more sense in the context of the rest of the verse:


Quote:

A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels.

Women are beneath Man in the eyes of God, and unlike men should cover their head in worship - and for this reason - women should have freedom over their own head?

no.

Women are beneath Man in the eyes of God, and unlike men should cover their head in worship - and for this reason - a power (men's power) should be enforced upon her during worship to keep her from insubordination - in the eyes of the angels.
- is obviously the interpretation that makes far more sense, and is what is most widely accepted by christian scholars themselves.

...and the best bit is that it is in the New Testament so none of these God Bothering Happy Clappers can use the old weazel out of....'Oh, that's in the Old Testament, which was revoked as set out in the New.'

Yeas!

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 1:09pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 12:34pm: This is actually quite an astonishing thing to find in a 2000 year old book from a supposedly patriarchal religion. Actually no. It turns out you are wrong on your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:10: Quote: n 1 Corinthians 11:10 Paul writes, διὰ τοῦτο ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους. "For this reason the woman should have [a sign of the man's] authority on her head, because of the angels." Here I will address the question of what the enigmatic phrase "because of the angels" may mean. Several explanations have been offered by scholars, but one explanation stands out as being by far the most commonly accepted. Briefly it is this: In Jewish tradition, and also in the early Church, angels are said to be present at sacred gatherings and sacred times, to watch over and to join with the saints in their spiritual exercises. Any serious offense against propriety during these sacred moments will stir up the disapproval of these angelic helpers of the saints, perhaps causing them to depart; and any good deed they witness will bring all the more aid from them. http://www.bible-researcher.com/angels.html and... [quote]11:10. Paul offered a third reason (the first reason was the divine order— God, Christ, man, woman, vv. 3-6; the second reason was Creation, vv. 7-9) why womanly insubordination in the church should not exist. Angels were spectators of the church (4:9; Eph. 3:10; 1 Tim. 5:21; cf. Ps. 103:20-21). For a woman to exercise her freedom to participate in the church without the head covering, the sign of her authority (exousia, a liberating term; cf. 1 Cor. 7:37; 8:9; 9:4-6, 12, 18), would be to bring the wisdom of God (Eph. 3:10) into disrepute.

https://bible.org/question/what-does-head-covering-1-cor-11-refer

A view that is complimented by the footnote in your own source - that you failed to mention (or more likely were too careless to notice):


Quote:

1 Corinthians 11:10 Or have a sign of authority on her

Which makes far more sense in the context of the rest of the verse:


Quote:

A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels.

Women are beneath Man in the eyes of God, and unlike men should cover their head in worship - and for this reason - women should have freedom over their own head?

no.

Women are beneath Man in the eyes of God, and unlike men should cover their head in worship - and for this reason - a power (men's power) should be enforced upon her during worship to keep her from insubordination - in the eyes of the angels.
- is obviously the interpretation that makes far more sense, and is what is most widely accepted by christian scholars themselves.

[/quote]

So why translate it as having authority over her own head?

And where does it say, or even imply, that women are beneath men? Would you describe something that is beneath you as your glory?


Aussie wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 2:14pm:

...and the best bit is that it is in the New Testament so none of these God Bothering Happy Clappers can use the old weazel out of....'Oh, that's in the Old Testament, which was revoked as set out in the New.' Yeas!

Aussie you never did say whether you agree with this interpretation or not:

1) Men should uncover their head when they pray.
2) Women should cover their head when they pray.
3) Just in case you might be tempted to misinterpret it, or deliberately misrepresent it as Gandalf did, it follows this up by saying women should have authority over their own head.

Quote:

Would you describe something that is beneath you as your glory?

Come orn, Effendi.  Context!

Here is the very clearly laid out pecking order:

God, Christ, man, woman.

Do you disagree?

Of course I disagree Aussie.

Aussie you never did say whether you agree with this interpretation or not:

1) Men should uncover their head when they pray.
2) Women should cover their head when they pray.
3) Just in case you might be tempted to misinterpret it, or deliberately misrepresent it as Gandalf did, it follows this up by saying women should have authority over their own head.

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 6:54pm:

Of course I disagree Aussie. Aussie you never did say whether you agree with this interpretation or not: 1) Men should uncover their head when they pray. 2) Women should cover their head when they pray. 3) Just in case you might be tempted to misinterpret it, or deliberately misrepresent it as Gandalf did, it follows this up by saying women should have authority over their own head.

I bet you do not reciprocate after I answer you. 

I 'agree' with 1 and 2, but 3 is dubious, and inexplicable given what preceded it......and Gandalf has provided sources which explain it as contrary to what you are saying.

Your turn, Effendi.

Interpret this, Effendi:


Quote:

A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 6:24pm:

And where does it say, or even imply, that women are beneath men? Would you describe something that is beneath you as your glory?

Really FD?

By that logic, men are not beneath God.

Do you not detect a sense of hierarchy in the phrase...

he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.?

Quote:

I 'agree' with 1 and 2, but 3 is dubious, and inexplicable given what preceded it

Why is it inexplicable?


Quote:

Interpret this, Effendi:

See previous page.


Quote:

By that logic, men are not beneath God.

Incorrect Gandalf. By that logic, the verse does not say that men are beneath God. Just as it does not say that women are either inferior to or beneath men. This is what it actually says:

1) Men should uncover their head when they pray.
2) Women should cover their head when they pray.
3) Just in case you might be tempted to misinterpret it, or deliberately misrepresent it as Gandalf did, it follows this up by saying women should have authority over their own head.


Quote:

Do you detect a sense of hierarchy in the phrase...

I understand your temptation to misrepresent it as such, given your desperation to find something to compare to Islam.

Quote:

Why is it inexplicable?

See previous pages.

I realise you don't understand Aussie, but there is no contradiction.

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 7:27pm:

I realise you don't understand Aussie, but there is no contradiction.

There is, and I am not going to waste effort trying to point out something which is blindingly obvious to everyone, except one who simply refuses to read words in context and give them an ordinary meaning.

This is the very clear pecking order,

God, Christ, man, woman.

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 7:23pm:

Incorrect Gandalf. By that logic, the verse does not say that men are beneath God. Just as it does not say that women are either inferior to or beneath men.

Wow, this is nothing short of gobsmacking FD.

Try again - do you not detect a sense of hierarchy in the phrase

he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.?

Or perhaps if I put it this way - do you think being the glory of God is a step up from being the glory of Man? Why do you think women are not considered the glory of God like men?

FD would you like to perform your first class mental gymnastics to explain how this verse is not really saying what it says...?

the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home

Are men told to shut up when they're outside of the home FD? Are men told that if they have any  questions they can only ask their wives when they are back at home?

But I'm curious FD - why is spinelessly apologising for the Bible's treatment of women so important to you? I'm pretty sure you're not a christian. Do you think you would be doing the same mental gymnastics if these same points were raised by a non-muslim?

Aussie wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 7:31pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 7:27pm: I realise you don't understand Aussie, but there is no contradiction. There is, and I am not going to waste effort trying to point out something which is blindingly obvious to everyone, except one who simply refuses to read words in context and give them an ordinary meaning. This is the very clear pecking order, God, Christ, man, woman.

So the verse is saying that Christ is inferior to God?


Quote:

Or perhaps if I put it this way - do you think being the glory of God is a step up from being the glory of Man?

While we are on the subject of reading things that are not actually there, would you describe something you consider beneath you as your glory?


Quote:

Why do you think women are not considered the glory of God like men?

Perhaps because people are going by what the Bible says. Do you know what it means to be the glory of something?


Quote:

Are men told to shut up when they're outside of the home FD?

Don't be silly. How would they buy vegetables in the marketplace? Mime it?

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 8:14pm:

While we are on the subject of reading things that are not actually there

I'm reading exactly what is there FD - nothing more nothing less. So do you think being the glory of God is a step up from being the glory of Man? Yes or no.


freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 8:14pm:

would you describe something you consider beneath you as your glory?

Ah, so we're back to concluding that men are not inferior to God. I mean men wouldn't be described as "the glory of God" if they were right?

Can you explain how that logic is any different to the one you are trying here?

Quote:

Ah, so we're back to concluding that men are not inferior to God.

No Gandalf. We are merely concluding that it does not actually say what you insist it says. 

Do you know what it means to be the glory of something?


Quote:

Can you explain how that logic is any different to the one you are trying here?

Yes. You are insisting that it says something it does not actually say. I am pointing out what it actually says. When I tell you it does not say what you insist it says, that is not me claiming it actually says the inverse. Do you agree this is logical?

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 8:49pm:

I am pointing out what it actually says

No you're not. You've been conspicuous in *NOT* showing us exactly what it says. Here, I'll make it easy for you:

A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels.

How anyone can read the above (as well as the other two I quoted) and argue against what is so mind-numbingly obvious - ie that this is saying that women are subservient and inferior to men - is nothing short of pure farce. Made even more so given that its from someone who constantly mocks muslims for arguing against what he sees as such clear and obvious interpretations of the Quran.

Would you describe something you consider inferior to you as your glory Gandalf?

Do you even know what it means to be the glory of something?

In your own words Gandalf. Take your time.

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 8:49pm:

Do you know what it means to be the glory of something?

Do explain FD - and while you're at it, try explaining how men being in the glory of God, but women are not, in the same verse that says man is not created for women, but women for man - is not stating the inferiority of women to men.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 9:14pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 8:49pm: Do you know what it means to be the glory of something? Do explain FD - and while you're at it, try explaining how men being in the glory of God, but women are not, in the same verse that says man is not created for women, but women for man - is not stating the inferiority of women to men.

I'm not the one telling everyone what it really means Gandalf. Like I told you already, I stuck to the bits that have a clear meaning. Here they are again for you:

1) Men should uncover their head when they pray.
2) Women should cover their head when they pray.
3) Just in case you might be tempted to misinterpret it, or deliberately misrepresent it as Gandalf did, it follows this up by saying women should have authority over their own head.

So, now that that is resolved, let's try this again.

Would you describe something you consider inferior to you as your glory Gandalf?

Do you even know what it means to be the glory of something?

In your own words Gandalf. Take your time.

Quote:

So the verse is saying that Christ is inferior to God?

Yes....in this sense.  Jesus is the Glory to God as Woman is the Glory to Man.

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 9:16pm:

Would you describe something you consider inferior to you as your glory Gandalf?

Yes FD - that is obvious. Why? Because man is already described as the glory of God. Would you say the Bible considers men as inferior to God? Take your time on that one.

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 9:16pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 9:14pm: freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 8:49pm: Do you know what it means to be the glory of something? Do explain FD - and while you're at it, try explaining how men being in the glory of God, but women are not, in the same verse that says man is not created for women, but women for man - is not stating the inferiority of women to men. I'm not the one telling everyone what it really means Gandalf. Like I told you already, I stuck to the bits that have a clear meaning. Here they are again for you: 1) Men should uncover their head when they pray. 2) Women should cover their head when they pray. 3) Just in case you might be tempted to misinterpret it, or deliberately misrepresent it as Gandalf did, it follows this up by saying women should have authority over their own head. So, now that that is resolved, let's try this again. Would you describe something you consider inferior to you as your glory Gandalf? Do you even know what it means to be the glory of something? In your own words Gandalf. Take your time.

Are you for real? You can't be this stupid, honestly.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
(Colossians 3:18; cf. 1 Peter 3:1 and Ephesians 5:22)

Let your women keep silence in churches: for it is not permitted unto them; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also sayeth the law.
(1 Corinthians 14:34, c/f 1 Corinthians 11:3-9 & Timothy 2:11-12)

And dare i point out the elephant in the room?

Can a woman be a priest?

Why not, FD?

Firstly, let us establish:

The Catholic Church honors Thomas Aquinas as a saint and regards him as the model teacher for those studying for the priesthood, and indeed the highest expression of both natural reason and speculative theology. In modern times, under papal directives, the study of his works was long used as a core of the required program of study for those seeking ordination as priests or deacons, as well as for those in religious formation and for other students of the sacred disciplines (philosophy, Catholic theology, church history, liturgy, and canon law).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas

Now we have that clear, let us expand:


The great Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas taught that women were defective men, imperfect in both body and soul. They were conceived either because of defective sperm or because a damp wind was blowing at the time of conception*. Leading scholars accepted Aquinas's teaching that women had a higher water content than men and that this made them sexually incontinent*. Since they were so watery, weak and unreliable it became a fundamental premise of canon law that they were inferior beings. Following Aquinas*, canon law decreed that women could not witness a will. Neither could they testify in disputes over wills, nor in criminal proceedings Generally women suffered the same sort of legal disabilities as children and imbeciles. They could not practice medicine, law or any other profession, nor could they hold any public office.


http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gaf_women.htm

“Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” 1 Timothy 2:11-15

yes yes mothra, but you should know that that one line that woman have authority over their own head trumps all that. - even if its an interpretation that most theologians reject.

mothra wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 12:18am:

freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 9:16pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 9:14pm: freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 8:49pm: Do you know what it means to be the glory of something? Do explain FD - and while you're at it, try explaining how men being in the glory of God, but women are not, in the same verse that says man is not created for women, but women for man - is not stating the inferiority of women to men. I'm not the one telling everyone what it really means Gandalf. Like I told you already, I stuck to the bits that have a clear meaning. Here they are again for you: 1) Men should uncover their head when they pray. 2) Women should cover their head when they pray. 3) Just in case you might be tempted to misinterpret it, or deliberately misrepresent it as Gandalf did, it follows this up by saying women should have authority over their own head. So, now that that is resolved, let's try this again. Would you describe something you consider inferior to you as your glory Gandalf? Do you even know what it means to be the glory of something? In your own words Gandalf. Take your time. Are you for real? You can't be this stupid, honestly.

He's not. He knows its inane, thats why he's avoiding addressing what it actually says. But you know, a muslim raised this, and naturally he can't let him get away with such insolence. Even if his argument is so transparently absurd - he figures, in classic FD style, if he finds enough ways to twist the discussion into absurd knots and confuse everybody with his incomprehensible logic - he'll eventually be able to get everyone to forget what this was all about, and to claim some sort of victory.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 7:39am:

yes yes mothra, but you should know that that one line that woman have authority over their own head trumps all that. - even if its an interpretation that most theologians reject.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 7:39am:

yes yes mothra, but you should know that that one line that woman have authority over their own head trumps all that. - even if its an interpretation that most theologians reject.

But Gandalf, the sovereignty we hold over our own heads is simply a manifestation of Original Sin.

Eve had authority over her own head and look where that got us.

We women, being the glory of man .. like made from Adam's rib and stuff ... and not the glory of God, like men are, need to know our place.

Sure we have sovereignty over our own heads but we need to cover the if we want to pray in church. And we need to be silent with our head coverings ... because we are the glory of men.

Thus is their ownership of us.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 7:48am:

mothra wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 12:18am: freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 9:16pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 9:14pm: freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 8:49pm: Do you know what it means to be the glory of something? Do explain FD - and while you're at it, try explaining how men being in the glory of God, but women are not, in the same verse that says man is not created for women, but women for man - is not stating the inferiority of women to men. I'm not the one telling everyone what it really means Gandalf. Like I told you already, I stuck to the bits that have a clear meaning. Here they are again for you: 1) Men should uncover their head when they pray. 2) Women should cover their head when they pray. 3) Just in case you might be tempted to misinterpret it, or deliberately misrepresent it as Gandalf did, it follows this up by saying women should have authority over their own head. So, now that that is resolved, let's try this again. Would you describe something you consider inferior to you as your glory Gandalf? Do you even know what it means to be the glory of something? In your own words Gandalf. Take your time. Are you for real? You can't be this stupid, honestly. He's not. He knows its inane, thats why he's avoiding addressing what it actually says. But you know, a muslim raised this, and naturally he can't let him get away with such insolence. Even if his argument is so transparently absurd - he figures, in classic FD style, if he finds enough ways to twist the discussion into absurd knots and confuse everybody with his incomprehensible logic - he'll eventually be able to get everyone to forget what this was all about, and to claim some sort of victory.

I think you credit him with more cleverness than he actually possesses.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 9:29pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 9:16pm: Would you describe something you consider inferior to you as your glory Gandalf? Yes FD - that is obvious. Why? Because man is already described as the glory of God. Would you say the Bible considers men as inferior to God? Take your time on that one.

Gandalf I realise that Islam is all about who gets to rape who, and Muhammad was also fond of telling people of other religions what they really believe, often in the most aggressive and offensive way. But you fall over where you try to project the base perversions of Islam onto other, legitimate religions.

For example, when you read about the glory of man, you assume it must automatically be a statement of inferiority, and your only remaining challenge in deciphering the meaning is to figure out who is inferior to who. Thus, the glory of man is "obviously" a statement of inferiority when viewed through your Islam tinted glasses. This projection is so pervasive that you cannot comprehend that someone might disagree with you without also believing it to be a statement of inferiority, merely with the roles reversed. Even when this is repeatedly pointed out to you, you still don't get it.

Thus I suggest to you that in order to comprehend the meaning of the glory of man, you ought first comprehend the meaning of the glory of man, rather than jumping ahead to who gets to be Caliph. Furthermore, in order to understand why I tell you that you are wrong, you must first abandon your assumption that I share your tendency to assume upfront that everything is about inferiority.

Gandy, do you see what i mean about cleverness?

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 12:39pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 9:29pm: freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 9:16pm: Would you describe something you consider inferior to you as your glory Gandalf? Yes FD - that is obvious. Why? Because man is already described as the glory of God. Would you say the Bible considers men as inferior to God? Take your time on that one. Gandalf I realise that Islam is all about who gets to rape who, and Muhammad was also fond of telling people of other religions what they really believe, often in the most aggressive and offensive way. But you fall over where you try to project the base perversions of Islam onto other, legitimate religions. For example, when you read about the glory of man, you assume it must automatically be a statement of inferiority, and your only remaining challenge in deciphering the meaning is to figure out who is inferior to who. Thus, the glory of man is "obviously" a statement of inferiority when viewed through your Islam tinted glasses. This projection is so pervasive that you cannot comprehend that someone might disagree with you without also believing it to be a statement of inferiority, merely with the roles reversed. Even when this is repeatedly pointed out to you, you still don't get it. Thus I suggest to you that in order to comprehend the meaning of the glory of man, you ought first comprehend the meaning of the glory of man, rather than jumping ahead to who gets to be Caliph. Furthermore, in order to understand why I tell you that you are wrong, you must first abandon your assumption that I share your tendency to assume upfront that everything is about inferiority.

FD lets go straight to where your argument falls over:


freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 9:16pm:

Would you describe something you consider inferior to you as your glory Gandalf?

The bible describes man as the glory of God - correct?

Do you think whoever wrote that is describing something they consider inferior to God as His glory?

Take the time to reflect properly on that.

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 12:39pm:

when you read about the glory of man, you assume it must automatically be a statement of inferiority

not at all FD. As I keep pointing out to you it fits into a context. A context that you are studiously avoiding. Hence following from that sentence the verse goes on to say, "For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." While it also follows on from "he head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man

Try explaining away "neither was man created for woman, but woman for man" and "the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man" - as somehow not stating women's subservience to men with a straight face.

Not to mention the other two verses I quoted.

There is a clear theme in all these verses - a theme of inferiority and subservience to men, which includes:

- ordering women to cover their head in church
- forbidding women to ask questions in church - must wait until your at home - then they may ask their husband
- stating the head of the woman is man - while the head of man is Christ
- stating man is the glory of God but woman is the glory of man
- stating men weren't created for women - but women were created for men

What does the N.T. and the qur'an say about women who have committed adultery / lewdness?

Bible:
Quote:

John 8:3  And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, John 8:4  They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. John 8:5  Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? Joh 8:6  This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. John 8:7  So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her

Then we have:
qur'an:
Quote:

qur’an 4:15 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death [by starvation] claims them.”

What does the qur'an say about dirt being cleaner than women?

qur'an 4.43: O you who have believed, do not approach prayer while you are intoxicated until you know what you are saying or in a state of janabah, except those passing through [a place of prayer], until you have washed [your whole body]. And if you are ill or on a journey or one of you comes from the place of relieving himself or you have contacted women and find no water, then seek clean earth and wipe over your faces and your hands [with it]. Indeed, allah is ever pardoning and forgiving.

O.k so if you've come from the toilet or contacted women, rub dirt on your face and hands before you pray.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 12:54pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 12:39pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 9:29pm: freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 9:16pm: Would you describe something you consider inferior to you as your glory Gandalf? Yes FD - that is obvious. Why? Because man is already described as the glory of God. Would you say the Bible considers men as inferior to God? Take your time on that one. Gandalf I realise that Islam is all about who gets to rape who, and Muhammad was also fond of telling people of other religions what they really believe, often in the most aggressive and offensive way. But you fall over where you try to project the base perversions of Islam onto other, legitimate religions. For example, when you read about the glory of man, you assume it must automatically be a statement of inferiority, and your only remaining challenge in deciphering the meaning is to figure out who is inferior to who. Thus, the glory of man is "obviously" a statement of inferiority when viewed through your Islam tinted glasses. This projection is so pervasive that you cannot comprehend that someone might disagree with you without also believing it to be a statement of inferiority, merely with the roles reversed. Even when this is repeatedly pointed out to you, you still don't get it. Thus I suggest to you that in order to comprehend the meaning of the glory of man, you ought first comprehend the meaning of the glory of man, rather than jumping ahead to who gets to be Caliph. Furthermore, in order to understand why I tell you that you are wrong, you must first abandon your assumption that I share your tendency to assume upfront that everything is about inferiority. FD lets go straight to where your argument falls over: freediver wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 9:16pm: Would you describe something you consider inferior to you as your glory Gandalf? The bible describes man as the glory of God - correct? Do you think whoever wrote that is describing something they consider inferior to God as His glory? Take the time to reflect properly on that.

Or, you could try giving a straight answer Gandalf. Would you describe something you consider inferior to you as your glory Gandalf?


Quote:

not at all FD. As I keep pointing out to you it fits into a context. A context that you are studiously avoiding.

No Gandalf, it was you who completely left out the context. Here it is again for you:

1) Men should uncover their head when they pray.
2) Women should cover their head when they pray.
3) Just in case you might be tempted to misinterpret it, or deliberately misrepresent it as Gandalf did, it follows this up by saying women should have authority over their own head.

As I already pointed out to Aussie, the bits you are having such trouble understanding are the explanation or justification for the first two points.


Quote:

Try explaining away "neither was man created for woman, but woman for man" and "the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man" - as somehow not stating women's subservience to men with a straight face.

It does not say anything at all about subservience. That is just you projecting the base perversions of Islam onto other, legitimate religions. Islam means submission. No other religion does.

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 6:00pm:

Or, you could try giving a straight answer Gandalf. Would you describe something you consider inferior to you as your glory Gandalf?

You could try paying attention FD. Try reply# 62 as well as 74. Then you can try answering my question about the logic you are failing at.


freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 6:00pm:

It does not say anything at all about subservience. That is just you projecting

You have to be joking. Seriously. Even Christians believe the Bible commands subservience to man - and they quote this very verse:


Quote:

10 Bible reasons why a wife must submit to her husband regardless of culture: 3. Creation purpose: Woman created for man: "for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake." 1 Corinthians 11:9 8. Man is the glory of God, woman is the glory of man: "For a man is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man." 1 Corinthians 11:7

http://www.bible.ca/marriage/submission-independent-of-culture.htm

and...


Quote:

To Love, Honor and Yes, Obey St. Paul reminded the Corinthians that “the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” (1 Corinthians 11:7-10) St. Peter commanded wives, “be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, when they see your reverent and chaste behavior.” Ss. Peter and Paul were not creating radical new teaching in these passages. They were simply reiterating what was always understood as God's plan for marriage and family. Page through the books of the Old Testament, and you will find plenty of examples of what happens when men and women upset the natural order and disobey God's command. It leads to nothing short of disaster.

http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article72.htm

FD I think you should contact these christians and explain to them that its all a big misunderstanding. That they need to understand that Peter and Paul's commands for women to be submissive to their husbands - is really just an elaborate explanation of how women must cover their heads in church.

Bloody funny how we are under a probable terrorist attack, now I wonder which community and or religious group this probable nutter will come from. My money is on the Buddhist society.
Has their ever been a low terrorist alert since the Muzzes got here in numbers.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 7:07pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 6:00pm: Or, you could try giving a straight answer Gandalf. Would you describe something you consider inferior to you as your glory Gandalf? You could try paying attention FD. Try reply# 62 as well as 74. Then you can try answering my question about the logic you are failing at. freediver wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 6:00pm: It does not say anything at all about subservience. That is just you projecting You have to be joking. Seriously. Even Christians believe the Bible commands subservience to man - and they quote this very verse: Quote: 10 Bible reasons why a wife must submit to her husband regardless of culture: 3. Creation purpose: Woman created for man: "for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake." 1 Corinthians 11:9 8. Man is the glory of God, woman is the glory of man: "For a man is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man." 1 Corinthians 11:7 http://www.bible.ca/marriage/submission-independent-of-culture.htm and... [quote]To Love, Honor and Yes, Obey St. Paul reminded the Corinthians that “the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” (1 Corinthians 11:7-10) St. Peter commanded wives, “be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, when they see your reverent and chaste behavior.” Ss. Peter and Paul were not creating radical new teaching in these passages. They were simply reiterating what was always understood as God's plan for marriage and family. Page through the books of the Old Testament, and you will find plenty of examples of what happens when men and women upset the natural order and disobey God's command. It leads to nothing short of disaster.

http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article72.htm

FD I think you should contact these christians and explain to them that its all a big misunderstanding. That they need to understand that Peter and Paul's commands for women to be submissive to their husbands - is really just an elaborate explanation of how women must cover their heads in church.[/quote]

That is not a rational argument Gandalf. You are still wrong about what it says, even if you can find someone who agrees with you.


Quote:

You could try paying attention FD. Try reply# 62 as well as 74.

Are you actually claiming you would do it under the instruction from this verse in the Bible?

Aussie wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2017 at 9:25pm:

Quote: So the verse is saying that Christ is inferior to God? Yes....in this sense.  Jesus is the Glory to God as Woman is the Glory to Man.

Effendi.....you have not responded.  Too hard?

;D :D ;D

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 7:40pm:

That is not a rational argument Gandalf.

Just so we're clear then - when reading all these things the bible says:

- forbidding women to ask questions in church - must wait until your at home - then they may ask their husband
- stating the head of the woman is man - while the head of man is Christ
- stating man is the glory of God but woman is the glory of man
- stating men weren't created for women - but women were created for men

you don't think its rational to conclude the bible says women are subservient and inferior to men?

Is it crayon time yet?

Aussie wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 7:47pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 9:25pm: Quote: So the verse is saying that Christ is inferior to God? Yes....in this sense.  Jesus is the Glory to God as Woman is the Glory to Man. Effendi.....you have not responded.  Too hard? ;D :D ;D

Sorry Aussie. Your posts just got too stupid to bother with.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 7:59pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 7:40pm: That is not a rational argument Gandalf. Just so we're clear then - when reading all these things the bible says: - forbidding women to ask questions in church - must wait until your at home - then they may ask their husband - stating the head of the woman is man - while the head of man is Christ - stating man is the glory of God but woman is the glory of man - stating men weren't created for women - but women were created for men you don't think its rational to conclude the bible says women are subservient and inferior to men? Is it crayon time yet?

Let's start with the one we have been discussing for the last 6 pages before we move on to the more subtle ones.

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 7:59pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 7:47pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 3rd, 2017 at 9:25pm: Quote: So the verse is saying that Christ is inferior to God? Yes....in this sense.  Jesus is the Glory to God as Woman is the Glory to Man. Effendi.....you have not responded.  Too hard? ;D :D ;D Sorry Aussie. Your posts just got too stupid to bother with.

Only in your eyes.  No-one else shares your view which is supported by......no one, not even Moses.  You are on your Pat Malone, Effendi.

They are the ones I've been discussing for 6 pages FD. But please, keep deflecting. Thats all you've done for 6 pages.

Look again Gandalf.

I can understand your desperation to change the subject though.

Does this mean you are willing to concede on the last one? Or do you still think glory actually means inferiority?

FD I've been discussing the same verses all along.


freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 8:05pm:

Does this mean you are willing to concede on the last one? Or do you still think glory actually means inferiority?

Oh good, we've graduated from farcical logic to strawmaning.

I said you can refer to something inferior as your glory, not that glory actually means inferiority. How do I know this? Because the bible refers to man as God's glory, and man is obviously inferior to God.

Women are not inferior to man because they are the glory of man - chalk that down as yet another of your strawman. Women are inferior because of all the other things the bible says - you know the things you studiously avoid referring to? The things I've been banging on about from post 1 of this inane debate:

- forbidding women to ask questions in church - must wait until your at home - then they may ask their husband
- stating the head of the woman is man - while the head of man is Christ
- stating man is the glory of God but woman is the glory of man
- stating men weren't created for women - but women were created for men

And thats not even going into the notorious Ephesians verse:

Ephesians 5:22-24

Quote:

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Quote:

I said you can refer to something inferior as your glory, not that glory actually means inferiority.

But it says glory. You highlighted glory. You said it means women are inferior.


Quote:

Women are inferior because of all the other things the bible says

Ah, so not the bit of the Bible you quoted to demonstrate they are inferior?

Would it be fair to say you have spent several pages misrepresenting 1 Corinthians 11:2-10 by insisting it means inferiority?

What is the point in taking this any further?  Fair bloody dinkum.

All Effendi wants to do is bag Islam (about which I could not care less) and ignore that what he bags has equivalence in both the Old and New Testaments (about which I could not care less.)

What is his real agenda?

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 8:21pm:

Ah, so not the bit of the Bible you quoted to demonstrate they are inferior?

Yes its exactly the bits I quoted. Refer to my first post.

FD can you please just clarify for us all that you are still maintaining the bible doesn't assert the inferiority and submissiveness of women to men? See if you can say it with a straight face.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 8:25pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 8:21pm: Ah, so not the bit of the Bible you quoted to demonstrate they are inferior? Yes its exactly the bits I quoted. Refer to my first post. FD can you please just clarify for us all that you are still maintaining the bible doesn't assert the inferiority and submissiveness of women to men? See if you can say it with a straight face.

OK gandalf, time for the crayons again:


polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 6:48pm:

wow FD you think I'm bad at reinterpreting the Quran. I'd love to see you explain exactly how this isn't stating the inferiority of women and ordering their submissiveness to men: Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. 1 Timothy 2:11-15 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair …For a man ought not to cover his head; since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 1 Corinthians 11:2-10 But power to any christian who rejects these commands.

Your highlighting Gandalf. I changed it to red and bold.

Are you now saying the bit about glory does not mean inferiority?

Quote:

Would it be fair to say you have spent several pages misrepresenting 1 Corinthians 11:2-10 by insisting it means inferiority?

Mind dumbing!

Gandalf (and others) has been spending several pages telling it as it is and doing no more than everyone else has by insisting those verses cannot be representing anything other than that the Bible tells us women are below men in a Biblical pecking order.

wow how pathetic can you get?

FD can I take it from this that you have given up maintaining the farcical position that the bible does not state the inferiority and submissiveness of women to men?

Couldn't say it with a straight face was it?

Aussie wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 8:29pm:

Quote: Would it be fair to say you have spent several pages misrepresenting 1 Corinthians 11:2-10 by insisting it means inferiority? Mind dumbing! Gandalf (and others) has been spending several pages telling it as it is and doing no more than everyone else has by insisting those verses cannot be representing anything other than that the Bible tells us women are below men in a Biblical pecking order.

And yet Gandalf appears to be conceding it does not actually say that. And of course you don't have a clue what it means.

Quote:

And yet Gandalf appears to be conceding it does not actually say that.

Gandalf?

Aussie wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 8:29pm:

Quote: Would it be fair to say you have spent several pages misrepresenting 1 Corinthians 11:2-10 by insisting it means inferiority? Mind dumbing! Gandalf (and others) has been spending several pages telling it as it is and doing no more than everyone else has by insisting those verses cannot be representing anything other than that the Bible tells us women are below men in a Biblical pecking order.

FD doesn't even dispute this. He dodges this actual point every time its brought up.

Right FD?

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 8:27pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 8:25pm: freediver wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 8:21pm: Ah, so not the bit of the Bible you quoted to demonstrate they are inferior? Yes its exactly the bits I quoted. Refer to my first post. FD can you please just clarify for us all that you are still maintaining the bible doesn't assert the inferiority and submissiveness of women to men? See if you can say it with a straight face. OK gandalf, time for the crayons again: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 6:48pm: wow FD you think I'm bad at reinterpreting the Quran. I'd love to see you explain exactly how this isn't stating the inferiority of women and ordering their submissiveness to men: Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. 1 Timothy 2:11-15 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair …For a man ought not to cover his head; since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 1 Corinthians 11:2-10 But power to any christian who rejects these commands. Your highlighting Gandalf. I changed it to red and bold. Are you now saying the bit about glory does not mean inferiority?

So much farce, so little patience to deal with it.

FD do you know why I highlighted it? Because men are the glory of God, while women are merely the glory of man. Why are women not the glory of God too? They would be if they weren't inferior.

Like I said, it is not saying the word glory itself means inferior.

Gandalf it is hard to keep up with your backflipping.

Does 1 Corinthians 11:2-10 mean inferiority? Or are you only projecting inferiority onto it  because of "everything else the Bible says"?

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 8:51pm:

Gandalf it is hard to keep up with your backflipping. Does 1 Corinthians 11:2-10 mean inferiority? Or are you only projecting inferiority onto it  because of "everything else the Bible says"?

The clear answer is.....yes.

Quote:

Why are women not the glory of God too? They would be if they weren't inferior.

The verse explains why, without referring to or even implying inferiority.

Gandalf here is some Gospel music to explain it for you:

https://youtu.be/u6XnHP9wzpc

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 9:00pm:

Gandalf here is some Gospel music to explain it for you: https://youtu.be/u6XnHP9wzpc

You cannot be serious!

You have been done like any dinner I have ever, ever seen over this matter Effendi, and I suspect it is all because you have a very personal vested interest in Arabia not being for Arabs.

Aussie wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 9:13pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 4th, 2017 at 9:00pm: Gandalf here is some Gospel music to explain it for you: https://youtu.be/u6XnHP9wzpc You cannot be serious! You have been done like any dinner I have ever, ever seen over this matter Effendi, and I suspect it is all because you have a very personal vested interest in Arabia not being for Arabs.

Who told you about my downtown Mecca real estate portfolio Aussie?

That's a secret, Effendi.

You tell yours and I'll tell mine.................oops, I already have.

Arabia is for Arabs.

Over to you Blue Leader.

freediver wrote on Apr 4^th, 2017 at 8:51pm:

Gandalf it is hard to keep up with your backflipping. Does 1 Corinthians 11:2-10 mean inferiority? Or are you only projecting inferiority onto it  because of "everything else the Bible says"?

FD do you agree man is inferior to God? I hope you don't require a specific quote to accept that one.

If we can agree with that, then do you agree that being the glory of God is a step up from being the glory of man? If women are not inferior to man, then why aren't they the glory of God as men are? You are welcome to dodge that like you always do.

But of course this statement of hierarchy is just one of the parts of 1 Conrinthians 11:2-10 that spells out women's subservience and inferiority to men. You also have For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.

The game's up though isn't it FD. You've already confirmed that you are unwilling to refute my fundamental point - I have invited you several times now to confirm your willingness to assert that the bible does not state the subservience and inferiority of women to men (with or without a straight face) - you dodge it every time. So that, as far as I'm concerned puts the issue to rest. All you can do is spin yarns about nonexistent backpedding and arguing the semantic toss of isolated words - while studiously avoiding the clear meaning of the entirety.

You don't actually believe I am wrong about the bible demanding subservience of women to men - and the more you play this pathetic game of obfuscation, the more obvious this fact becomes.

Quote:

FD do you agree man is inferior to God? I hope you don't require a specific quote to accept that one.

Why is this relevant? Are you suggesting that the verse says something, not by virtue of what it actually says, but by virtue of what is true? In that case you literally are projecting meaning onto it.


Quote:

If we can agree with that, then do you agree that being the glory of God is a step up from being the glory of man?

Again Gandalf, not everything is about inferiority. You completely miss the point in trying to project the base perversions of Islam onto other, legitimate religions.


Quote:

If women are not inferior to man, then why aren't they the glory of God as men are? You are welcome to dodge that like you always do.

I answered last time. The verse gives you an answer to this, without referring to or implying inferiority.


Quote:

But of course this statement of hierarchy

It says nothing at all about heirachy. You are projecting that onto it.


Quote:

You also have For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.

Gandalf, would you also say that this is a statement of inferiority about women:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1491379675

Or, if you make a grand statue out of a lump of clay, does that mean the statue is inferior to the lump of clay? Again, this is nothing more than you projecting meaning onto a verse that does not actually say or imply inferiority. Whether the lump of clay is superior or inferior to the statue is a completely different issue from whether one was made from the other.


Quote:

You don't actually believe I am wrong about the bible demanding subservience of women to men - and the more you play this pathetic game of obfuscation, the more obvious this fact becomes.

Like I already explained Gandalf, if I can't get you to accept the bleeding obvious examples, there is little point moving on to the more subtle ones. Let's just stick with the Bible does not say what you claim it says.

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2017 at 6:17pm:

It says nothing at all about heirachy. You are projecting that onto it.

You are correct. However it is a perfectly reasonable projection - and whats more christian scholars agree:


Quote:

Headship First, there is an appointed scale of authority that God has prescribed for humankind, though such is scarcely recognized in today’s modern world. Paul alludes to it in 1st Corinthians 11:2ff, namely: God is he head of Christ, Christ is the head of every man, and man is the head of woman. For our present purpose we will explore the meaning of the phrase, “the head of the woman is the man.” The Greek term is kephale. The word may be used literally of a physical head (Mark 6:24), or, metaphorically, of “rank,” as in the present case. God the Father is the “head” of Christ due to the fact that Jesus, by means of the incarnation, subordinated himself to the Father (Philippians 2:5-8). Christ is “the head of every man” (1 Corinthians 11:3). It is important to note that the expression, “every man,” is more comprehensive than every “Christian” man. Some commentators take the position that the “headship” here reflected pertains only to that of Christian men (Meyer, Fee, etc.), while others insist that the relationship principle is broader than merely that of a Christian woman to a Christian man. Findlay argues that the issue here “is one that touches the fundamental proprieties of life (8-15); and the three headships enumerated belong to the hierarchy of nature” (p. 871). Lewis Johnson contends that the male gender as such “displays the authority of God on earth” (p. 1247; cf. 11:7). Lenski asserts that the phrase “every man” must not be restricted to Christian men; rather, literally, Christ is the head of “every man” — whether they accept him or not (p. 433). The subsequent context regarding creation, etc., would appear to support this latter view.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1137-in-what-sense-is-man-the-head-of-woman


Quote:

New Testament scholar Frank Stagg considers verse 10 above as being "quite enigmatic, where a woman's being veiled is "because of the angels". In his book, he suggests clues to the intention. He concludes his comments on this passage by saying that "The problems here are many. What is Paul's authority or source for the hierarchy: God, Christ, man, woman? ..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Christianity

And here's a footnote from the source you yourself used to quote 1 Corinthians 11:


Quote:

11:7–9 The hierarchy of v 3 is now expressed in other metaphors: the image (eikōn) and the reflected glory (doxa).

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11%3A3-16&version=NABRE

So do me a favour FD, the least you could do is give up this ruse about this concept of a hierarchy in 1 Corinthians 10 being some agenda ridden "projection" by sinister muslims - and acknowledge that christian scholars themselves accept it.

Quote:

First, there is an appointed scale of authority

See Gandalf, that is a statement about heirachy. Can you tell the difference?


Quote:

and acknowledge that christian scholars themselves accept it.

You are still not making a valid argument Gandalf. Furthermore, they do not make the same claim as you about the verse.

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2017 at 6:17pm:

Again Gandalf, not everything is about inferiority.

Correct. 1 Corinthians 11 is also about ordering subservience of women.

As you might have noticed from the footnotes of your very own source - which starts with:


Quote:

Footnotes: 11:3–16 Women have been participating in worship at Corinth without the head-covering normal in Greek society of the period. Paul’s stated goal is to bring them back into conformity with contemporary practice and propriety. In his desire to convince, he reaches for arguments from a variety of sources, though he has space to develop them only sketchily and is perhaps aware that they differ greatly in persuasiveness.

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2017 at 8:17pm:

they do not make the same claim as you about the verse.

Yes they do. You are trully delusional if you think otherwise.

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2017 at 6:17pm:

It says nothing at all about heirachy

next post...


freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2017 at 8:17pm:

See Gandalf, that is a statement about heirachy.

:P

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 5^th, 2017 at 8:23pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 5th, 2017 at 6:17pm: It says nothing at all about heirachy next post... freediver wrote on Apr 5th, 2017 at 8:17pm: See Gandalf, that is a statement about heirachy. :P

What exactly do you think you have here Gandalf?


polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 5^th, 2017 at 8:21pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 5th, 2017 at 8:17pm: they do not make the same claim as you about the verse. Yes they do. You are trully delusional if you think otherwise.

They merely say the verse "alludes" to a heirachy.

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2017 at 8:40pm:

What exactly do you think you have here Gandalf?

A statement about hierarchy in 1 Corinthians 11

Would you like to confirm you still believe there isn't?

footnotes from your own source:


Quote:

11:3 A husband the head of his wife: the specific problem suggests to Paul the model of the head as a device for clarifying relations within a hierarchical structure.

and connecting that to the 'glory' bit:


Quote:

11:7–9 The hierarchy of v 3 is now expressed in other metaphors: the image (eikōn) and the reflected glory (doxa).

Well touch a woman, rub your hand withs dirt, and call me allah.

Some of the more enlightening muslim sentiments regarding women are: 

Tabari IX:113 “Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur’an.”

Tabari I:280 “Allah said, ‘It is My obligation to make Eve bleed once every month as she made this tree bleed. I must also make Eve stupid, although I created her intelligent.’ Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are stupid.”


Qur’an 4:11 “Allah directs you in regard of your Children’s (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two
females…. These are settled portions ordained by Allah.”

Bukhari:V1B22N28 “The Prophet said: ‘I was shown the Hell Fire and the majority of its dwellers were women who are disbelievers or ungrateful.’ When asked what they were ungrateful for, the Prophet answered, ‘All the favors done for them by their husbands.’”

Muslim:B1N142 “‘O womenfolk, you should ask for forgiveness for I saw you in bulk amongst the dwellers of Hell.’ A wise lady said: Why is it, Allah’s Apostle, that women comprise the bulk of the inhabitants of Hell? The Prophet observed: ‘You curse too much and are ungrateful to your spouses. You lack common sense, fail in religion and rob the wisdom of the wise.’ Upon this the woman remarked: What is wrong with our common sense? The Prophet replied, ‘Your lack of common sense can be determined from the fact that the evidence of two women is equal to one man. That is a proof.’”

Qur’an 4:43 “Believers, approach not prayers with a mind befogged or intoxicated until you understand what you utter. Nor when you are polluted, until after you have bathed. If you are ill, or on a journey, or come from answering the call of nature, or you have touched a woman, and you find no water, then take for yourselves clean dirt, and rub your faces and hands. Lo! Allah is Benign, Forgiving.”

Bukhari:V4B55N547 “The Prophet said, ‘But for the Israelis, meat would not decay, and if it were not for Eve, wives would never betray their husbands.’”

Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘ This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”

Ishaq:584 “Tell the men with you who have wives: never trust a woman.”

Ishaq:185 “In hell I saw women hanging by their breasts. They had fathered bastards.”

Qur’an 24:33 “Force not your slave-girls to whoredom (prostitution) if they desire chastity, that you may seek enjoyment of this life.  But if anyone forces them, then after such compulsion, Allah is oft-forgiving.”

Ishaq:469 “The Apostle said, ‘Every wailing woman lies except those who wept for Sa’d.’”

Ishaq:496 “Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.’ So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, ‘Tell the Apostle the truth.’”

Quote:

A statement about hierarchy in 1 Corinthians 11

No Gandalf. It was a statement about hierarchy in a statement about 1 Corinthians 11


Quote:

The hierarchy of v 3 is now expressed in other metaphors

That is another way of saying it does not actually say women are inferior to men. The verses make it plainly obvious what they are actually saying Gandalf.

Is this what you have been saying from the beginning Gandalf - that it uses metaphors to allude to a hierarchy of inferiority? Or are you backpedaling?

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2017 at 9:14pm:

The verses make it plainly obvious what they are actually saying Gandalf.

FD you originally contended that it was a statement of women's power over their own body (or at least their head). Its been proven that most christian scholars reject that interpretation - not least of all your own source:


Quote:

11:3–16 Women have been participating in worship at Corinth without the head-covering normal in Greek society of the period. Paul’s stated goal is to bring them back into conformity with contemporary practice and propriety.

and...


Quote:

.11:10 A sign of authority: “authority” (exousia) may possibly be due to mistranslation of an Aramaic word for “veil”; in any case, the connection with 1 Cor 11:9 indicates that the covering is a sign of woman’s subordination.

So what else is "plainly obvious" about what this verse is saying FD? Apparently its not anything to do with what the verse actually says.

Gandalf, have you backpedaled to merely claiming that the verse alludes to metaphors for inferiority? Or would that be misrepresenting what your favourite Christian researchers are saying?


Quote:

FD you originally contended that it was a statement of women's power over their own body (or at least their head).

Yes Gandalf. The statement that women have authority over their head is exactly that.


Quote:

So what else is "plainly obvious" about what this verse is saying FD?

1) Men should uncover their head when they pray.
2) Women should cover their head when they pray.
3) Just in case you might be tempted to misinterpret it, or deliberately misrepresent it as Gandalf did, it follows this up by saying women should have authority over their own head.

Like I keep telling you, the verses about glory that you hare having such difficulty with are explanations or justifications for the first two points.

Do you know what it means to be the glory of something?

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2017 at 9:40pm:

Yes Gandalf. The statement that women have authority over their head is exactly that.

Firstly no one else seems to agree with you - for example your own source:


Quote:

11:3–16 Women have been participating in worship at Corinth without the head-covering normal in Greek society of the period. Paul’s stated goal is to bring them back into conformity with contemporary practice and propriety.

and...


Quote:

.11:10 A sign of authority: “authority” (exousia) may possibly be due to mistranslation of an Aramaic word for “veil”; in any case, the connection with 1 Cor 11:9 indicates that the covering is a sign of woman’s subordination.

and secondly, it makes no sense in the context of the rest of the verse (not to mention all the other letters from Paul on the same theme). It is about St Paul whinging that women should be compelled to wear the veil - after years of lapses. And he spells out the hierarchy of God - Christ - man - woman,  to argue the inferior nature of women, and why women should cover their head - ie they are the glory of Man, not God - and therefore should be covered in the presense of God. And in case theirs any doubt about women's subordinate position inside the church, he is even more blatant in 1 Corinthians 14:


Quote:

the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church

Ever heard the expression "should be seen but not heard"? Really liberating stuff eh FD?

But please, do keep persisting with your little fantasy that all this lecturing about women's subordination and how they should cover themselves and shut up and not ask anything until they're safely shut away in their house - is above anything else really a statement of women's empowerment.

Interesting though, not even moses is backing you on this one.

Quote:

Firstly no one else seems to agree with you - for example your own source:

You seem to be suffering some pretty severe confirmation bias here Gandalf. My own source states plainly and clearly, in the verse itself, not just the interpretation of it, that women have authority over their own head.

On the other hand, the closest that your sources come to supporting you is saying that the verse alludes to metaphors for hierarchy.

Gandalf do you know what it means to be the glory of something? Or are you telling us the meaning of a verse whose meaning you are completely oblivious to?

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2017 at 12:29pm:

You seem to be suffering some pretty severe confirmation bias here Gandalf. My own source states plainly and clearly, in the verse itself, not just the interpretation of it, that women have authority over their own head.

FD are you trying to be stupid? Do you get off on this willful idiocy? Seriously.

*THIS* is the interpretation - I'll quote again:


Quote:

11:10 A sign of authority: “authority” (exousia) may possibly be due to mistranslation of an Aramaic word for “veil”; in any case, the connection with 1 Cor 11:9 indicates that the covering is a sign of woman’s subordination.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11%3A3-16&version=NABRE

Ah, the 'connection' 'indicates' a 'sign'. Case closed.

Gandalf do you know what it means to be the glory of something? Or are you telling us the meaning of a verse whose meaning you are completely oblivious to?

Quote:

Gandalf do you know what it means to be the glory of something?

You have self proclaimed expertise on this Effendi, so let's have your interpretation of this, and tell us what the 'glory' bit is all about:


Quote:

"For a man is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man."

Aussie wrote on Apr 6^th, 2017 at 6:23pm:

Quote: Gandalf do you know what it means to be the glory of something? You have self proclaimed expertise on this Effendi, so let's have your interpretation of this, and tell us what the 'glory' bit is all about: [quote]"For a man is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man."

[/quote]

Gandalf is the only one here telling everyone what it means.

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2017 at 6:06pm:

Gandalf do you know what it means to be the glory of something?

FD I have already explained this is not the question. I have already refuted this lie of yours that I somehow think the word 'glory' means inferior. I have never said that, and obviously 'being the glory' of something is not the issue.

What *IS* the issue - is the fact that men are the glory of God, while women are merely the glory of man. It is a very clear statement of hierarchy.

I don't think you are stupid enough to pretend this is not spelling out a hierarchy any more - you tried that once then quietly walked away from it when you realised how utterly ludicrous it was. So now you are back to this innane strawman. But its not fooling anyone - blind freddy can see that St Paul is describing women's inferiority/subservience to man - in order to get her to cover up and shut up in church, and not open her mouth until she's safely shut away in her home. And he does this by spelling out this hierarchy - men are the glory of God *BUT* women are only the glory of man - man was made from God, while women were *MERELY* made from man, and most damningly - man was not made for women *BUT* women were made for man. There you go, a clearer statement of inferiority and subservience could not possibly be made.

What a pathetic game you are playing at here FD. You simply cannot bear to accept what is so clearly obvious - all because you can't bear it coming from a muslim. You just have to fight the muslim, no matter what. But of course you don't refute the actual point I am making - that the Bible states the inferiority and subservience of women to men - you can't. Not even you can bring yourself to come out and state such an idiotic claim. So you do what you always do - nitpick away at individual words and phrases, accuse me of backpeddling and all the rest - all in that same inane theme of 'muslim just doing typical sinister muslim things'.

But the games up FD, its pathetic beyond words. Not even the resident Bible bashers will back you up on this. The best you can hope for is that no one else is paying attention, you can confuse enough people with your endless inane obfuscations - and then limp away declaring a draw. Just like that monty python knight.

Quote:

FD I have already explained this is not the question. I have already refuted this lie of yours that I somehow think the word 'glory' means inferior. I have never said that, and obviously 'being the glory' of something is not the issue.

I understand why you would want to pretend that your inability to comprehend the verse is irrelevant to whether you can tell everyone what it really means. You chop and change what your 'real' argument is with every post.

Gandalf do you know what it means to be the glory of something?


Quote:

What *IS* the issue - is the fact that men are the glory of God, while women are merely the glory of man.

I see. But what that actually means is not the issue?


Quote:

It is a very clear statement of hierarchy.

Why did you quote 'experts' saying it is merely alluding a metaphors for hierarchy?


Quote:

I don't think you are stupid enough to pretend this is not spelling out a hierarchy any more - you tried that once then quietly walked away from it when you realised how utterly ludicrous it was.

It is not spelling out hierarchy. Glory does not mean inferiority.


Quote:

And he does this by spelling out this hierarchy - men are the glory of God *BUT* women are only the glory of man - man was made from God, while women were *MERELY* made from man, and most damningly - man was not made for women *BUT* women were made for man.

As a companion, if I recall correctly. Do you consider your companions to be inferior to you? Also, man was made from a lump of clay according to the same book. I notice you steadfastly avoid this point, again misrepresenting the Bible by saying man was actually made from God. Is man superior or inferior to the lump of clay he was made from? Is woman superior, on account of being made from flesh rather than dirt? Or is your interpretation of these words completely baseless?


Quote:

There you go, a clearer statement of inferiority and subservience could not possibly be made.

Sure it could. You quoted one earlier. It would look something like this: women are inferior to men. Do you understand the difference now?

LOL...  its always amusing watching a Non-Christian debate Christianity from a position of ignorance.

Just because Islam and the Koran are immutable and never changing, which BTW on the one hand, is the reason for their very existence...  the Bible and the Christian religion has moved with the times.  The ignorant also confuse Old and New Testaments...


Quote:

The Old Testament (also known as the Jewish Tanakh) is the first 39 books in most Christian Bibles. The name stands for the original promise with God (to the descendants of Abraham in particular) prior to the coming of Jesus Christ in the New Testament (or the new promise). The Old Testament contains the creation of the universe, the history of the patriarchs, the exodus from Egypt, the formation of Israel as a nation, the subsequent decline and fall of the nation, the Prophets (who spoke for God), and the Wisdom Books.

Quote:

The New Testament is a collection of 27 books, usually placed after the Old Testament in most Christian Bibles. The name refers to the new covenant (or promise) between God and humanity through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The New Testament chronicles the life and ministry of Jesus, the growth and impact of the early church, and instructive letters to early churches.

Yes the Old and New are related...  but they are not the same... Christianity comes from the life (and death) of Christ and His teachings.

The Genesis account of God’s creation of the first male and female gives a clear picture that is extremely different from evolutionary views in our culture. God designed both the man and woman in His own image equally (Genesis 1:26–27).

Adam was created first, but God decreed that it was not good for man to be alone (Genesis 2:18). Therefore, God fashioned Eve out of Adam’s rib. The well-known Bible commentator Matthew Henry said that Eve was “made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.”

As stated, Christianity moves with the times...  unlike Islam...  Islam is mired in the past: in time, place and culture.  Christianity has undergone change through The Reformation, letters presented in the New Testament speak of the time, place and culture in which they were written...  clearly it is inappropriate to mire humanity and sentence them to life in the stoneage. ;)

Quote:

The New Testament is a collection of 27 books, usually placed after the Old Testament in most Christian Bibles. The name refers to the new covenant (or promise) between God and humanity through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The New Testament chronicles the life and ministry of Jesus, the growth and impact of the early church, and instructive letters to early churches.

Instructive letters like those of Paul's - who orders women to cover themselves, not have any authority over men, keep their mouth shut until they're safely confined to their home, and be subordinate "as even the law says".

FD interprets this as a statement of women's liberation.

freediver wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 12:39pm:

Quote: FD I have already explained this is not the question. I have already refuted this lie of yours that I somehow think the word 'glory' means inferior. I have never said that, and obviously 'being the glory' of something is not the issue. I understand why you would want to pretend that your inability to comprehend the verse is irrelevant to whether you can tell everyone what it really means. You chop and change what your 'real' argument is with every post. Gandalf do you know what it means to be the glory of something? [quote]What *IS* the issue - is the fact that men are the glory of God, while women are merely the glory of man.

I see. But what that actually means is not the issue?


Quote:

It is a very clear statement of hierarchy.

Why did you quote 'experts' saying it is merely alluding a metaphors for hierarchy?


Quote:

I don't think you are stupid enough to pretend this is not spelling out a hierarchy any more - you tried that once then quietly walked away from it when you realised how utterly ludicrous it was.

It is not spelling out hierarchy. Glory does not mean inferiority.


Quote:

And he does this by spelling out this hierarchy - men are the glory of God *BUT* women are only the glory of man - man was made from God, while women were *MERELY* made from man, and most damningly - man was not made for women *BUT* women were made for man.

As a companion, if I recall correctly. Do you consider your companions to be inferior to you? Also, man was made from a lump of clay according to the same book. I notice you steadfastly avoid this point, again misrepresenting the Bible by saying man was actually made from God. Is man superior or inferior to the lump of clay he was made from? Is woman superior, on account of being made from flesh rather than dirt? Or is your interpretation of these words completely baseless?


Quote:

There you go, a clearer statement of inferiority and subservience could not possibly be made.

Sure it could. You quoted one earlier. It would look something like this: women are inferior to men. Do you understand the difference now?[/quote]

Serious question FD, if I may...

If the Quran had a verse like 1 Corinthians 11 - saying women should cover their heads, they must stay silent, can only ask questions when they are shut away in their own home, that they must not have any position of authority over men - and that men were not made for women, but women were made for men.... would you be insisting so vehemently that its not a statement of women's inferiority and subservience to men?

And furthermore, if the same verse had the words "a woman ought to have authority over her own head"- and all known interpretations argued that this meant imposing the veil on her (ie "authority on her" - footnote from your own source) - would you still go out on a limb and insist it really means women's empowerment over their own body - despite everything else it says to the contrary in the same verse?

Be honest here FD.

Still ignoring history and culture etc I see...

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 7^th, 2017 at 2:55pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 7th, 2017 at 12:39pm: Quote: FD I have already explained this is not the question. I have already refuted this lie of yours that I somehow think the word 'glory' means inferior. I have never said that, and obviously 'being the glory' of something is not the issue. I understand why you would want to pretend that your inability to comprehend the verse is irrelevant to whether you can tell everyone what it really means. You chop and change what your 'real' argument is with every post. Gandalf do you know what it means to be the glory of something? [quote]What *IS* the issue - is the fact that men are the glory of God, while women are merely the glory of man. I see. But what that actually means is not the issue? [quote]It is a very clear statement of hierarchy.

Why did you quote 'experts' saying it is merely alluding a metaphors for hierarchy?


Quote:

I don't think you are stupid enough to pretend this is not spelling out a hierarchy any more - you tried that once then quietly walked away from it when you realised how utterly ludicrous it was.

It is not spelling out hierarchy. Glory does not mean inferiority.


Quote:

And he does this by spelling out this hierarchy - men are the glory of God *BUT* women are only the glory of man - man was made from God, while women were *MERELY* made from man, and most damningly - man was not made for women *BUT* women were made for man.

As a companion, if I recall correctly. Do you consider your companions to be inferior to you? Also, man was made from a lump of clay according to the same book. I notice you steadfastly avoid this point, again misrepresenting the Bible by saying man was actually made from God. Is man superior or inferior to the lump of clay he was made from? Is woman superior, on account of being made from flesh rather than dirt? Or is your interpretation of these words completely baseless?


Quote:

There you go, a clearer statement of inferiority and subservience could not possibly be made.

Sure it could. You quoted one earlier. It would look something like this: women are inferior to men. Do you understand the difference now?[/quote]

Serious question FD, if I may...

If the Quran had a verse like 1 Corinthians 11 - saying women should cover their heads, they must stay silent, can only ask questions when they are shut away in their own home, that they must not have any position of authority over men - and that men were not made for women, but women were made for men.... would you be insisting so vehemently that its not a statement of women's inferiority and subservience to men?

And furthermore, if the same verse had the words "a woman ought to have authority over her own head"- and all known interpretations argued that this meant imposing the veil on her (ie "authority on her" - footnote from your own source) - would you still go out on a limb and insist it really means women's empowerment over their own body - despite everything else it says to the contrary in the same verse?

Be honest here FD.
[/quote]

There are plenty of perfectly clear instructions to Muslims to slaughter and subjugate people. I would not bother with the vague "allusions to metaphors for" hierarchy.

Meanwhile today 2017 on the subject of females and the decadent sexual attitudes of muslim pigs

sick twisted pieces of muslim human excrement, the beacon of islamic enlightenment on the use of females

Malaysia votes down child marriage ban

Published: 10:18 pm, Wednesday, 5 April 2017 -

A Malaysian MP says girls as young as nine are 'physically and spiritually' ready for marriage, as the Muslim-majority Southeast Asian country passed a law on sexual offences against children.

Shabudin Yahaya, a member of the Barisan Nasional coalition, made the comments in response to a proposal by an opposition member of parliament to amend the Sexual Offences Against Children bill to include a ban on child marriages.

The proposal was voted down by the majority of parliament.'They reach puberty at the age of nine or 12. And at that time, their body is already akin to them being 18 years old. So physically and spiritually, it is not a barrier for the girl to marry,' Shabudin said on Tuesday during a debate on the bill.

The reason they choose to say 9 years old is that Muhammad had sex with a 9 year old girl, which proves that it is OK to have sex with 9 year old girls.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2017 at 8:28am:

There are plenty of perfectly clear instructions to Muslims to slaughter and subjugate people. I would not bother with the vague "allusions to metaphors for" hierarchy.

FD do you not see the irony of mocking me for not seeing the supposedly clear quranic instructions to slaughter and subjugate people - and then performing the most extraordinary mental gymnastics to pretend the crystal clear statements of women's inferiority and subjugation to men in the New Testament don't actually exist?

And oh look - here's moses dropping by to once again not back you up on your absurd biblical apologetics.

Do you think you could find a single christian who backs you up on your interpretations FD?

Here you go Gandalf - does this look like an allusion to a metaphor?

Quran (2:191-193) - And kill them wherever you find them...


Quote:

Do you think you could find a single christian who backs you up on your interpretations FD?

I quoted a translation provided by Christians Gandalf. The Bible quote states that women have authority over their own head.

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2017 at 6:32pm:

I quoted a translation provided by Christians Gandalf. The Bible quote states that women have authority over their own head.

Ooh look FD pretending to be stupid again.

I mean you couldn't possibly forget what I have pointed out several times now already - that those very same christians point out in the footnotes to that verse that a) the verse is about "Paul’s stated goal" of getting women to cover their heads, b)"authority" is likely a mistranslation of the Greek "veil" and c) another translation is "authority *ON* her" and d) (to quote it) "in any case, the connection with 1 Cor 11:9 indicates that the covering is a sign of woman’s subordination."
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11%3A3-16&version=NABRE
and
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11%3A2-16&version=NKJV

They can point all they like. The verse still says that women have authority over their own head.

Do you consider your companions to be inferior to you?

Is man superior or inferior to the lump of clay he was made from?

Is woman superior, on account of being made from flesh rather than dirt?

Or is your interpretation of these words completely baseless?

Do you know what it means to be the glory of something Gandalf?

Is the meaning of the verse relevant to the meaning of the verse Gandalf?

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2017 at 7:07pm:

They can point all they like. The verse still says that women have authority over their own head.

Does it FD?

Actually your source contradicts itself. On some pages on that site it says "over their own head", whereas on others it says:

For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11%3A2-16&version=NKJV

for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority[e] on her head
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11%3A3-16&version=NABRE

Here's just another one of the plethora of sources that disagree with the interpretation FD prefers:


Quote:

In 1 Corinthians 11:10 Paul writes, διὰ τοῦτο ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους. "For this reason the woman should have [a sign of the man's] authority on her head, because of the angels."

http://www.bible-researcher.com/angels.html

oh what the hell, here's another one...


Quote:

For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head, &c.] The generality of interpreters, by power, understand the veil, or covering on the woman's head, as a sign of the man's power over her, and her subjection to him; which Dr. Hammond endeavours to confirm, by observing that the Hebrew word (dydr) , which signifies a woman's veil, or hood, comes from a root which signifies power and dominion; but in that he is mistaken, for the word is derived not from (hdr) , to rule, govern, or exercise power and authority, but from (ddr) , to expand, stretch out, or draw over, as a woman's veil is drawn over her head and face. The Greek word (exousia) more properly signifies the power she had of putting on and off her covering as she pleased, according as times, places, and persons; made it necessary:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-corinthians-11-10.html

Quote:

Actually your source contradicts itself.

Ah. Case closed. This is just like the verses in the Koran that instruct Muslims to kill the infidel with vague allusions to metaphors like "kill them wherever you find them".

Do you consider your companions to be inferior to you?

Is man superior or inferior to the lump of clay he was made from?

Is woman superior, on account of being made from flesh rather than dirt?

Or is your interpretation of these words completely baseless?

Do you know what it means to be the glory of something Gandalf?

Is the meaning of the verse relevant to the meaning of the verse Gandalf?

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2017 at 8:48pm:

Ah. Case closed.

Pathetic.

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2017 at 8:48pm:

Is man superior or inferior to the lump of clay he was made from?

he is inferior to what he is the glory of - would you agree?

That would depend on what he is the glory of Gandalf. Do you agree? Or do you think glory means inferiority?

Do you know what it means to be the glory of something Gandalf?

Is man superior or inferior to the lump of clay he was made from?

Effendi, tell us what the 'glory' bit is all about:



Quote:

"For a man is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man."

I have asked before, and you keep ignoring it.  Is that because you if you do answer, you know your stupid charade is over?

I cannot offer you any insight on this one Aussie, beyond glory means glory. I have told you this before. I am not the one insisting it means something else.

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2017 at 9:50pm:

I cannot offer you any insight on this one Aussie, beyond glory means glory. I have told you this before. I am not the one insisting it means something else.

Yet your ignorance does not hold you back when someone with half a brain tells you what it means.  When they do, you want to box on stupidly.


Quote:

"For a man is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man."

Clear pecking order,  woman last.

No, given you concede  you have no idea, why not save any further embarrassment and just keep your fingers off the keyboard?

Quote:

Yet your ignorance does not hold you back when someone with half a brain tells you what it means.

Do you know what it means to be the glory of something Aussie?

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2017 at 10:04pm:

Quote: Yet your ignorance does not hold you back when someone with half a brain tells you what it means. Do you know what it means to be the glory of something Aussie?

Yes, and I have already explained it as has Gandalf.  God whom Jesus glorifies,  Jesus whom Man glorifies, and Man whom Woman  glorifies....and subjugates  themselves to.

Too hard for you, Effendi?

To 'glorify' is to accept a place lower than the object of the glorification given.

freediver wrote on Apr 9^th, 2017 at 9:33pm:

That would depend on what he is the glory of Gandalf. Do you agree?

man is the glory of God - do you agree?
man is inferior to God - do you agree?

How much more absurd are you going to make this discussion FD?

Do you agree that your beloved 1 Corinthians 11:10 isn't the clear cut interpretation you previously insisted - given that your own source provides several different translations?

Wassup Gandi....  prefer to argue stupidity while ignoring the reality.

I did post it you know....  but hell that would ruin your disingenuous arguments wouldn't it. ::)

Aussie wrote on Apr 9^th, 2017 at 10:18pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 9th, 2017 at 10:04pm: Quote: Yet your ignorance does not hold you back when someone with half a brain tells you what it means. Do you know what it means to be the glory of something Aussie? Yes, and I have already explained it as has Gandalf.  God whom Jesus glorifies,  Jesus whom Man glorifies, and Man whom Woman  glorifies....and subjugates  themselves to. Too hard for you, Effendi? To 'glorify' is to accept a place lower than the object of the glorification given.

So you think that glory literally means inferiority? Did Gandalf tell you this?


Quote:

man is the glory of God - do you agree?

I agree that this is what the verse actually says. What is your point Gandalf? Are you trying to say that glory literally means inferiority?


Quote:

Do you agree that your beloved 1 Corinthians 11:10 isn't the clear cut interpretation you previously insisted - given that your own source provides several different translations?

It is pretty clear cut in the interpretations I have offered, because I limited my interpretation to what it clearly says. It is nothing at all like the interpretations you have offered.

It means subjugation.

Now you sound like a Muslim. So glory literally means subjugation? Did Gandalf convince you of this?

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2017 at 12:43pm:

Now you sound like a Muslim. So glory literally means subjugation? Did Gandalf convince you of this?

Gandalf has no need to convince me of the most obvious, Effendi.  In the absence of any challenge from you as to my interpretation, we'll just go with mine for now, wot.  When you come up with an offering, don't be afraid to post it Effendi.  Karnal is as curious as we all are, I'm sure.

Wade through this wanker's waffle, Effendi.  It may assist you get over your little prejudice.

Link.

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2017 at 12:19pm:

I agree that this is what the verse actually says.

Thank God.. perhaps we are making progress...


freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2017 at 12:19pm:

What is your point Gandalf?

oh dear... back to 'me no speaka da English'...

Its as if you just completely ignored what I wrote in the very next line. Its almost as if you are wilfully pretending to be stupid in some pathetic attempt to obfuscate how painfully idiotic your position is.

Shall we try one more time?

Man is the glory of God - you've actually got that part... great.

Now listen very carefully FD, the next bit is crucial:

Man is inferior to God - do you agree??? Please don't ignore it this time, because this is key to my point - so don't ask again.

So what is my point? Concentrate here FD, I want you to listen veeeeeeery carefully...

Man is the glory of God, and is also inferior to God - therefore it is possible for the "glory" of something to also be inferior to that something

Does it mean glory = inferior? For the 1000th time - no.

So what does make woman inferior to man in this instance?

The hierarchy that is being spelled out: man is the glory of God, but women are (merely) the glory of Man. If women were equal to man, then such a hierarchy would not make sense - women would simply be declared as the glory of God just like men. This hierarchy cannot be separated from the other statement of hiearchy in the same verse: God is the head of Christ, Christ the head of man, and man the head of woman. And the context for all this is St Paul's goal of putting women back in their place - to cover up in church, and to shut up and not ask questions until she is safely shut away in her own home. This is the argument Paul uses to justify this order: spell out the natural order, where women are at the bottom, to argue that women are inferior and ought to be subservient to men, and should act like it when they are in church.

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 7:59pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2nd, 2017 at 6:48pm: wow FD you think I'm bad at reinterpreting the Quran. I'd love to see you explain exactly how this isn't stating the inferiority of women and ordering their submissiveness to men: Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty. 1 Timothy 2:11-15 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair …For a man ought not to cover his head; since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 1 Corinthians 11:2-10 But power to any christian who rejects these commands. Would a Muslim lie? Surely not. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11%3A2-10&version=NIV For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head

This means that women should have the freedom to cover their heads or shave their hair off, as every schoolboy knows.

You are onto what this is all about aren't you, Gandalf?

It would totally nullify one of Effendi's greatest criticisms of Islam, i.e that women are inferior to man, if there is a Biblical equivalent.

That is why his posts are just absurd, deliberate obfuscation, and denials of what is just so obvious.

freediver wrote on Apr 10^th, 2017 at 12:19pm:

It is pretty clear cut in the interpretations I have offered, because I limited my interpretation to what it clearly says. It is nothing at all like the interpretations you have offered

What does it "clearly" say FD? Do you know Greek? You are cherry picking the interpretation you want to hear - and flatly refusing to acknowledge the existence of other interpretations. Here I'll show you again:

For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11%3A2-16&version=NKJV

for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority[e] on her head
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11%3A3-16&version=NABRE

I emphasise again - these are different interpretations from your same source.

And in any case even the page that has the interpretation you cherry pick out clearly states in the footnote that it could be " Or have a sign of authority on her".

Every other source I have found states that it is about forcing the veil on the woman (ie "authority *ON* her head")

eg...


Quote:

The generality of interpreters, by power, understand the veil, or covering on the woman's head, as a sign of the man's power over her, and her subjection to him

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-corinthians-11-10.html

Aussie wrote on Apr 10^th, 2017 at 2:32pm:

You are onto what this is all about aren't you, Gandalf? It would totally nullify one of Effendi's greatest criticisms of Islam, i.e that women are inferior to man, if there is a Biblical equivalent. That is why his posts are just absurd, deliberate obfuscation, and denials of what is just so obvious.

spot on.

We are now seeing the lengths FD is prepared to go to to not let a challenge to one of his key memes go unpunished. And by a muslim no less. These are desperate times - and FD pulls out all the stops - the inane irrelevant questions - repeated over and over, the 'me no speak da English' routine, the nitpicking of individual words, while studiously avoiding the actual point, and of course endlessly attacking his opponent of backpeddling and chopping and changing.

This is what it looks like when FD flails around not having a clue. And it aint pretty.

Quote:

Gandalf has no need to convince me of the most obvious, Effendi.  In the absence of any challenge from you as to my interpretation, we'll just go with mine for now, wot.

 

Not even Gandalf agrees with you on this.


Quote:

It would totally nullify one of Effendi's greatest criticisms of Islam, i.e that women are inferior to man, if there is a Biblical equivalent.

Why is that Aussie?


Quote:

Its as if you just completely ignored what I wrote in the very next line.

No. I am waiting for you to put a vague, implied argument into a real one. Go on, say it with a striaght face. The Bible implies that man is inferior to God. It specifically states than man is the glory of God. Therefor glory means inferiority.


Quote:

Man is the glory of God, and is also inferior to God - therefore it is possible for the "glory" of something to also be inferior to that something

Yes Gandalf, it is possible.


Quote:

Does it mean glory = inferior? For the 1000th time - no.

You'll upset Aussie.


Quote:

The hierarchy that is being spelled out: man is the glory of God, but women are (merely) the glory of Man.

So glory does not mean inferiority, it means heirachy?


Quote:

If women were equal to man, then such a hierarchy would not make sense

I think you have almost figured it out Gandalf. If it does make sense, it makes sense. If ti doesn't make sense, it doesn't make sense. But which one is it? Are you saying you must be correct because if you were incorrect you would not be making sense?


Quote:

This hierarchy cannot be separated from the other statement of hiearchy in the same verse: God is the head of Christ, Christ the head of man, and man the head of woman.

So you admit you don't know what it means to be the glory of something, and have decided instead that head means inferior? What then does the verse mean by God is the head of Christ? Is Christ an insect, with God the head, Jesus the thorax, and the holy spirit the abdomen?


Quote:

This is the argument Paul uses to justify this order: spell out the natural order

With allusions to metaphors?


Quote:

What does it "clearly" say FD?

I have repeated it dozens of times in this thread Gandalf.

Quote bombs.

Give me a post I can respond to without the gymnastics of isolating what you have addressed to me.  I can do it, and I do as a matter of courtesy to the person I am in dialogue with.

walk away gandalf... just walk away

God is spirit.

The spirit of righteousness.

Christ taught that God is spirit and the kingdom of God is within man, man must worship in spirit and truth.

The words of the Bible are human words from mans' inner spiritual self / cognitive process concerned with spiritual properties of their life, which they trust are inspired by the spirit of righteousness (God). (my explanation, other people may and can have a different understanding)

They are human words, which contain all of the marks of the men who wrote them, and of the time and the culture in which they were written, they considered the words to be spiritually correct and justly. 

So what was considered the norm over 2000 years ago (women had a defined place in society) is now relegated to the scrap heap, as we give women a more eminent position in our modern society, the spirit of righteousness will always be, just as the spirit of evil will always be.

Which brings us to islam

The qur'an contains the words / inner spiritual beliefs and desires of a thief liar pedophile rapist torturer and mass murderer'

The qur'an is influenced by the thoughts and wants of muhammad, he trusted his inner being was the image of his god allah, that is why his god allah, is the god of hate torture and mass murder, it is merely a reflection of muhammads persona and social acceptances of him the time.

The Bible, going back over 4000 odd years of written works, contains many barbaric passages which were completely accepted by society at that time.

However fortunately, the Bible was not given as the absolute never to changed words and commands of the Spirit of Righteousness, the N.T. superseded much of the O.T. outright, so society has been able to evolve upwards for the most part.

It is an entirely different story with islam, the qur'an is touted as infallible and can never be changed. So the torture death and destruction will always be an integral part of islam (it simply is forbidden for it not to be).

muhammad the best of all examples, gave muslims his doctrine (inner beliefs and thoughts) of theiving, lying, pedophilia, rape torture and mass murder (spirit of evil) as the sacred path for muslims.

While ever islam exists without an exhaustive review of muhammad and the qur'an (which would destroy islam), the islamic atrocities committed by devout muslims who are following the qur'an to the letter, will continue unabated.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2017 at 2:48pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 10th, 2017 at 2:32pm: You are onto what this is all about aren't you, Gandalf? It would totally nullify one of Effendi's greatest criticisms of Islam, i.e that women are inferior to man, if there is a Biblical equivalent. That is why his posts are just absurd, deliberate obfuscation, and denials of what is just so obvious. spot on. We are now seeing the lengths FD is prepared to go to to not let a challenge to one of his key memes go unpunished. And by a muslim no less. These are desperate times - and FD pulls out all the stops - the inane irrelevant questions - repeated over and over, the 'me no speak da English' routine, the nitpicking of individual words, while studiously avoiding the actual point, and of course endlessly attacking his opponent of backpeddling and chopping and changing. This is what it looks like when FD flails around not having a clue. And it aint pretty.

Bollocks again.

The relationship of Muslims and Christians to their sacred and other texts and their faiths is profoundly and incompatibly different. Their concepts of the text, of reason, of authority, source and the very idea of god and man are radically and irreconcilably different.

Assuming that a Christian regards a verse of the Bible the same way as a Muslim regards a similar verse in the Koran is a massive mistake. It is the same sort of huge mistake as regarding Allah as being the same as Yahweh or as God the Father of Christianity.

Frank wrote on Apr 11^th, 2017 at 5:12pm:

Assuming that a Christian regards a verse of the Bible the same way as a Muslim regards a similar verse in the Koran is a massive mistake

No idea what you mean by that - but I don't have to assume anything about how christians regard Bible verses - they tell us what they think. For example:


Quote:

The generality of interpreters, by power, understand the veil, or covering on the woman's head, as a sign of the man's power over her, and her subjection to him

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-corinthians-11-10.html

Even our very own resident bible basher thinks St Paul and other's misogynistic commands are now "relegated to the scrap heap". Apparently he missed FD's memo that he was really championing women's empowerment  :P

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2017 at 7:47pm:

walk away gandalf... just walk away

The correct term is run away Gandalf.

You started by insisting that glory means inferiority, but you still don't know what glory even means. So you tried arguing that women are inferior because they are made from man, but that didn't work either because man was man from a lump of dirt, though you did try pretending man was made "from God". Then you tried deferring to various Christians and experts, except they used words like allusion and metaphor, which is hardly helpful regarding the certainty you are trying to ascribe to your interpretation, and nothing at all like the Koran's clear and explicit instructions to slaughter the infidel. Your latest attempt is to focus on the word head, but I doubt you know what that means either.

Yes Gandalf, run away, just like you now run away from the dozens of blatant lies and amoral excuses you have offered for Muhammad's genocide.

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2017 at 9:22pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10th, 2017 at 7:47pm: walk away gandalf... just walk away The correct term is run away Gandalf. You started by insisting that glory means inferiority, but you still don't know what glory even means. So you tried arguing that women are inferior because they are made from man, but that didn't work either because man was man from a lump of dirt, though you did try pretending man was made "from God". Then you tried deferring to various Christians and experts, except they used words like allusion and metaphor, which is hardly helpful regarding the certainty you are trying to ascribe to your interpretation, and nothing at all like the Koran's clear and explicit instructions to slaughter the infidel. Your latest attempt is to focus on the word head, but I doubt you know what that means either. Yes Gandalf, run away, just like you now run away from the dozens of blatant lies and amoral excuses you have offered for Muhammad's genocide.

Jayzuz wept.  Your posts are of the broken record kind,  one trick pony-ish and very, very shallow.

It does not matter what contortion you wish to put plain words through Effendi........the Bible clearly sets out an unmistakable pecking order, and ~ your use of the word 'genocide' to describe what was a 'mere' massacre of the Crazy Horse/Sitting Bull/Custer kind is just so blindingly disingenuous as to even border on deceptive and deliberate misrepresentation.

You ain't fooling anyone with that hyperbole, Effendi.....other than yourself.

Can you explain why you think glory means pecking order?

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2017 at 9:54pm:

Can you explain why you think glory means pecking order?

I have already done that as has Gandalf.  Have you not read the many posts with the explanation you have been given as many times as you have asked........less one, this one?

Gandalf said it does not mean inferiority. He now denies pretty much every argument he has made.

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2017 at 10:17pm:

Gandalf said it does not mean inferiority.

What did he say it meant, Effendi?  What did I say it meant, Effendi? What did you say it meant, Effendi?

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2017 at 2:24pm:

Does it mean glory = inferior? For the 1000th time - no.

Don't be embarrassed Aussie. I am as confused as you are. Gandalf has offered nothing but contradictions.

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2017 at 10:23pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10th, 2017 at 2:24pm: Does it mean glory = inferior? For the 1000th time - no. Don't be embarrassed Aussie. I am as confused as you are. Gandalf has offered nothing but contradictions.

What did he say it meant, Effendi?  What did I say it meant, Effendi? What did you say it meant, Effendi?

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2017 at 9:22pm:

You started by insisting that glory means inferiority,

absolute bullshit.

Quote me.

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2017 at 9:54pm:

Can you explain why you think glory means pecking order?

Glory does not mean pecking order - just another inane FD strawman.

If women are equal to men, can you explain why women are not the glory of God - like men are?

Do you understand that (according to St Paul) women are the glory of something inferior to what the men are the glory of? How is that not stating a pecking order/hierarchy?

Take your time on these FD, I've only asked you about 30 times.

Quote:

Glory does not mean pecking order

That is my expression, and all it means is that I am cutting to the chase, and not palavering with a zillion posts to get to the bottom line.

But you are not saying, nor have you ever said the word glory means pecking order.

The pecking order, or hierarchy, as we both have explained, is in the statement that men are the glory of God but women are (merely) the glory of men. Or in other words, men get to be the glory of the ultimate supreme being, while women are the glory of something inferior (hence the hierarchy/pecking order). And it flows straight into "For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." - and is preceded by "the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God"

But apparently its not actually a statement of hierarchy because its only an "allusion" to a hierarchy - or whatever FD's current thought bubble passes for his "argument".

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 12^th, 2017 at 5:42pm:

But you are not saying, nor have you ever said the word glory means pecking order. The pecking order, or hierarchy, as we both have explained, is in the statement that men are the glory of God but women are (merely) the glory of men. Or in other words, men get to be the glory of the ultimate supreme being, while women are the glory of something inferior (hence the hierarchy/pecking order). And it flows straight into "For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." - and is preceded by "the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a] and the head of Christ is God" But apparently its not actually a statement of hierarchy because its only an "allusion" to a hierarchy - or whatever FD's current thought bubble passes for his "argument".

Yeas, I agree with that.  I always use fewer words (because I assume I am communicating with people who have a brain) to get to the same point others do, and they use far more words.

Quote:

If women are equal to men, can you explain why women are not the glory of God - like men are?

As I keep telling you Gandalf, the verse offers an explanation, without referring to inferiority. The fact that you do not even understand the verse is not evidence you are correct.


Quote:

That is my expression, and all it means is that I am cutting to the chase, and not palavering with a zillion posts to get to the bottom line.

And what is that Aussie? That glory means pecking order?


Quote:

Do you understand that (according to St Paul) women are the glory of something inferior to what the men are the glory of? How is that not stating a pecking order/hierarchy?

It is not stating a pecking order/hierarchy by not stating a pecking order/hierarchy. How about instead of asking me to prove what it is not saying, you try to back up your mental contortions about what it does say?


Quote:

The pecking order, or hierarchy, as we both have explained, is in the statement that men are the glory of God but women are (merely) the glory of men.

Most recently you changed your mind and decided it was head, not glory, that means inferiority. You specifically stated that glory does not imply inferiority. Are you going to offer a different excuse every time you attempt to explain your theory Gandalf?

Have you figured out yet what it means to be the glory of something? Or are you still telling us what the verse means without actually knowing what it means?


Quote:

But apparently its not actually a statement of hierarchy because its only an "allusion" to a hierarchy - or whatever FD's current thought bubble passes for his "argument".

It was the evidence you presented that described it as an allusion Gandalf. It is not my fault you don't even read your own evidence.

freediver wrote on Apr 12^th, 2017 at 6:29pm:

Quote: If women are equal to men, can you explain why women are not the glory of God - like men are? As I keep telling you Gandalf, the verse offers an explanation, without referring to inferiority. The fact that you do not even understand the verse is not evidence you are correct. When will you tell us your interpretation/explanation, Effendi?  You have already said you accept it is beyond your ken, yet you reckon it makes sense that one such as you who admits they have no idea, can credibly have a bitch about the explanation others logically offer. [quote]That is my expression, and all it means is that I am cutting to the chase, and not palavering with a zillion posts to get to the bottom line.

And what is that Aussie? That glory means pecking order?

Yes.  In this sense....glory is used to set this order out ~ God, Jesus, Man, Woman descending from top to bottom.


Quote:

Do you understand that (according to St Paul) women are the glory of something inferior to what the men are the glory of? How is that not stating a pecking order/hierarchy?

It is not stating a pecking order/hierarchy by not stating a pecking order/hierarchy. How about instead of asking me to prove what it is not saying, you try to back up your mental contortions about what it does say?

Palava bullshit.

Quote:

When will you tell us your interpretation/explanation, Effendi?  You have already said you accept it is beyond your ken, yet you reckon it makes sense that one such as you who admits they have no idea, can credibly have a bitch about the explanation others logically offer.

It does not say the things that Gandalf claims it does Aussie. I do not need to know what it means to be the glory of something in order to point this out. I merely need to point out that neither you nor Gandalf know what it means. You are both insisting on knowing the true meaning of this verse, despite not being able to tell us what it means.


Quote:

Yes.  In this sense....glory is used to set this order out ~ God, Jesus, Man, Woman descending from top to bottom.

The verse does not state this Aussie.


Quote:

Palava bullshit.

I cannot prove that it doesn't say the things you and Gandalf attribute to it Aussie. They are just not there. It is up to you to demonstrate that it does actually say these things. So far, you both fail.

Quote:

It does not say the things that Gandalf claims it does Aussie. I do not need to know what it means to be the glory of something in order to point this out. I merely need to point out that neither you nor Gandalf know what it means. You are both insisting on knowing the true meaning of this verse, despite not being able to tell us what it means.

Question:  Aussie, what does I + 1 = ?

Answer:  2.

Question:  Effendi, what does 1 + 1 = ?

Answer:  I have no idea, yet I can say that Aussie wrong.  2 is not the correct answer.

Do you know what it means to be the glory of something Aussie?

freediver wrote on Apr 12^th, 2017 at 7:17pm:

Do you know what it means to be the glory of something Aussie?

Yeas, you are far less than the glory of me.

8-)

The very clear Biblical sequential glory order is......God, Jesus, Man, Woman.

freediver wrote on Apr 12^th, 2017 at 6:29pm:

It is not stating a pecking order/hierarchy by not stating a pecking order/hierarchy.

But you do acknowledge it was an "allusion" to a hierarchy. How does that work FD?

Just suppose for a minute you woke up from your lala land and actually acknowledged the consensus of Christian opinion on this verse that it is about getting women to cover up and know their subservient place to men (as your own source, and every other source we have seen explicity state)... would you then acknowledge that the "allusion" to a hierarchy that we see in this verse is a logical way to justify this subservience?


freediver wrote on Apr 12^th, 2017 at 6:29pm:

Most recently you changed your mind and decided it was head, not glory, that means inferiority.

You really have no idea do you?

Try and find a quote of me ever saying glory means inferiority. And as you discover that this is complete rubbish, who knows, maybe you'll start to get a clue about what I'm actually saying. Not holding my breath though.

Quote:

But you do acknowledge it was an "allusion" to a hierarchy. How does that work FD?

No. I pointed out that your own evidence, contrary to the BS spin you were pushing, uses that term. I have told you more than enough times what it actually says and what the purpose of including glory, head, made from etc is.


Quote:

Just suppose for a minute you woke up from your lala land and actually acknowledged the consensus of Christian opinion on this verse that it is about getting women to cover up and know their subservient place to men (as your own source, and every other source we have seen explicity state)

My own source, the first one that came up on google, explicitly states that women have authority over their own head. Like I keep telling you, this is not in the interpretation of the verse. It is in the verse itself.


Quote:

Try and find a quote of me ever saying glory means inferiority. And as you discover that this is complete rubbish, who knows, maybe you'll start to get a clue about what I'm actually saying. Not holding my breath though.

Have you settled on which bit means inferiority yet? You keep changing your mind. Aussie is getting terribly confused.

And where does the lump of dirt fit into your hierarchy of inferiority?

freediver wrote on Apr 13^th, 2017 at 6:52pm:

My own source, the first one that came up on google, explicitly states that women have authority over their own head. Like I keep telling you, this is not in the interpretation of the verse. It is in the verse itself.

Yes, as long as we ignore the footnote of that very same source eh?

It IS the interpretation FD - its the interpretation of the Greek word translated as 'glory'. You are not reading the Greek in which it was written in, you are reading the English translation. So stop with this crap about its not the interpretation ok? Your own source states that its likely its a mistranslation of "veil", and says that in any case it represents women's subordination.

There is literally nothing whatsoever in that verse, nor in any of the interpretations we have seen that supports your fantasy that St Paul was really stating women's empowerment over their own bodies. Not even the resident bible bashers are backing you up. Moses says such statements like 1 Corinthians 11 have no place in modern society and should be relegated to the scrap heap. You two really should compare notes and get your memes in order.


freediver wrote on Apr 13^th, 2017 at 6:52pm:

Have you settled on which bit means inferiority yet? You keep changing your mind. Aussie is getting terribly confused.

All that garbled nonsense means is that you can't find anywhere where I said glory means inferiority. Thanks for confirming.

Has anyone said that women are inferior to men in this discussion?

Quote:

Yes, as long as we ignore the footnote of that very same source eh?

You can prattle on about it all you want. It still says what it says.


Quote:

It IS the interpretation FD - its the interpretation of the Greek word translated as 'glory'.

OK. Tell us what it really means to be the glory of something.

Also, where does the lump of dirt fit into your hierarchy of inferiority?

Aussie wrote on Apr 13^th, 2017 at 8:11pm:

Has anyone said that women are inferior to men in this discussion?

Only the Koran compliant Muslims.

Frank wrote on Apr 13^th, 2017 at 9:43pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 13th, 2017 at 8:11pm: Has anyone said that women are inferior to men in this discussion? Only the Koran compliant Muslims.

Show me their posts here, Sore End.

freediver wrote on Apr 13^th, 2017 at 9:07pm:

You can prattle on about it all you want. It still says what it says.

Its not me whose prattling on about this - its your own damned source. You are literally saying that the intepretation of actual christians doesn't matter. And we know that every single analysis we have seen comes to only one conclusion - that it is stating women's subservience to men, and therefore justifying the call for them to cover up and shut up in church. You haven't even begun to refute that fact. In fact you don't even try and deny it - you studiously avoid coming out and actually saying its not about subservience. Because you know it is.


freediver wrote on Apr 13^th, 2017 at 9:07pm:

Also, where does the lump of dirt fit into your hierarchy of inferiority?

It doesn't. This is just you displaying how utterly clueless you are. Much like you thinking that asking me ad infinitum what I think glory means has any relevance to this discussion, or making up fairy tales about me insisting glory means inferior.

------and today 2017 in the real world:

qur'an 4.34: Men are the maintainers of women because allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely allah is high, great.

The woman leading the conversation, who is identified as Sydney teacher Reem Allouche, says a man is permitted to hit a woman as an act of discipline, and fellow panellist Atika Latifi, agrees.
https://youtu.be/iLFfcvok1DU

Egyptian cleric the rules for wifebeating.
https://youtu.be/Wp3Eam5FX58

islam wife beating is honourable
https://youtu.be/HWCkEZlu3mM

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2017 at 4:29pm:

Thats right moses - if any of those dastardly muslims suggests that Islam shouldn't be violent or intolerant - don't let them get away with it. Heaven forbid we have peace loving muslims walking around!

Supporting atheists from Islam is politically incorrect, because authorities and respectable pundits do not want to be accused of encouraging Muslims to leave the religion. Furthermore, as we’ve just seen with the cancellation of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s trip, even reasonably held atheist views from Islam are seen as threatening, insensitive and demeaning to religious Muslims. This is one of the biggest barriers to the reform of Islam, that Muslim identity is so tightly wrapped up in the expression of self. We may see hijabs and beards as external markers but they are fashion accessories to an inner outfit of historical injustice, moral superiority and a barely disguised middle finger to Anglo-Saxon, mainstream Australia.

For decades Muslims have protested that any legitimate criticism of Israel is deflected by Jews with accusations of anti-semitism. But now Muslims have jumped on the bandwagon themselves with the term Islamophobia used as a defence against the scrutiny of the set of ideas that is Islam.

The result is often an unsophisticated debate veering from proclamations that Islam is a falsely maligned religion of peace to more antagonistic voices demanding bans on Muslim immigration. By aggressively crowding out the most informed Islamic reformers, like Hirsi Ali or British thinker Maajid Nawaz, defensive Muslims are rewarded with the likes of Wilders, Trump or Hanson.

But Islamic reform depends upon having a large variety of voices and thinkers in the tent varying from feminists, gays and atheists. The notion of an atheist or cultural Muslim has traditionally been a joke, an oxymoron in Islam, but it is time for this new category. As the Canadian-Pakistani physician illustrates in his book The Atheist Muslim, the vast majority of Muslims completely reject the passages in the Koran encouraging the hitting of women, executing homosexuals or killing apostates. But in their rejection they are usually limited to intellectual gymnastics about the passages lacking context because Muslims still believe the text as the word of God. The implications of the way most Muslims behave is that they do not actually believe the Koran being the literal word of God. As Rizvi notes, religious believers all self select their views within certain confines.

There are many cafeteria Catholics who ignore the faith’s teachings around abortion and contraception but retain their Catholic identities. Likewise many Jews openly reject belief in an Abrahamic God but are committed to traditions like Passover. Judaism progressed from questioning the Torah as being the word of God to accepting that it was created by men with divine inspiration.

Figures like Hirsi Ali have changed their attitudes to reform, believing that it’s important to be in the tent with Muslims, whereas previously she was resigned to abandoning the religion altogether. But any progress still depends upon Muslims giving up such a space and not seeing atheists as existential threats. There is only a flicker of such attitudinal change thus far.

Gandalf do you know what it means to be the glory of something. Surely if you insist the meaning of this bit is key to you argument, you would take the time to find out what it means before telling everyone what it means. Right?


Quote:

Its not me whose prattling on about this - its your own damned source.

My source is a verse from the Bible saying that women have authority over their own head. Actually it was your source, but you left that bit out.


Quote:

You are literally saying that the intepretation of actual christians doesn't matter.

It does matter. They translated it as "women have authority over their own head".


Quote:

It doesn't. This is just you displaying how utterly clueless you are. Much like you thinking that asking me ad infinitum what I think glory means has any relevance to this discussion, or making up fairy tales about me insisting glory means inferior

.

Why does the lump of dirt get left out, but everything else gets included in the hierarchy?

And why did you tell us that the lump of dirt is God?

freediver wrote on Apr 15^th, 2017 at 6:15pm:

Gandalf do you know what it means to be the glory of something. Surely if you insist the meaning of this bit is key to you argument, you would take the time to find out what it means before telling everyone what it means.

Wow you love to make up crap FD. Where did I ever tell everyone what it means. Go on quote me. You'll probably find it in the same suppository where I claimed glory means inferior or where I threatened to ban you.

And no, I don't have to explain what it means. You can replace glory with poo, or anything you like. It doesn't make any difference. You don't have to know what it means to know that a hierarchy is being described in which women are below men and men are below God. Think of it like algebra - where 'glory' is 'x': men are the 'x' of God, while women are (merely) the 'x' of men. Interpret x whichever way you like, it doesn't matter.

If women are not inferior to men, then why are they not the glory of God like men are? Why are they the glory of something inferior to God? Feel free to keep dodging this key question FD.


freediver wrote on Apr 15^th, 2017 at 6:15pm:

My source is a verse from the Bible saying that women have authority over their own head.

Your own source gives about 4 different translations to the same verse. You cherry pick one and pretend thats all their is. Your own source explains in the analysis that this verse means women have to cover up and be subservient. You ignore the opinion of actual christians.

Seriously what is wrong with you? This is primary school level debating FD.


freediver wrote on Apr 15^th, 2017 at 6:15pm:

It does matter. They translated it as "women have authority over their own head".

*facepalm*


freediver wrote on Apr 15^th, 2017 at 6:15pm:

And why did you tell us that the lump of dirt is God?

;D