Uncovered Women

[JakeStarkey]

All of this wearing casual clothes to go worship God in his house is absolutely ridiculous.

If you had an invitation to go to the White House to meet the President (Bush/Obama) to have dinner with a CEO of a major company; maybe even the Pope.

I bet what you would wear your finest clothes and be groomed to the max.

Yet people go to worship the Master and Creator of the Universe.

And dress as though they're going to a flea market or swap meet.

You are on this one, SM. God accepts where they are when they meet Him. He did not expect the disciples and their families to dress up, and He does not expect you to do so either.

 

[Sunni Man]

All of this wearing casual clothes to go worship God in his house is absolutely ridiculous.

If you had an invitation to go to the White House to meet the President (Bush/Obama) to have dinner with a CEO of a major company; maybe even the Pope.

I bet what you would wear your finest clothes and be groomed to the max.

Yet people go to worship the Master and Creator of the Universe.

And dress as though they're going to a flea market or swap meet.

You are on this one, SM. God accepts where they are when they meet Him. He did not expect the disciples and their families to dress up, and He does not expect you to do so either.

True, when you first become aware of G-d you can be wearing anything.

But once you start going to visit him in his house. Then it's a matter of proper respect to dress up in your finest. Even the Kings of the earth and the ancient Prophets in the Torah (O.T.) would wear their finest when going to worship G-d. Should we do any less?

 

[Anachronism]

Wow. Interesting topics in here.....

It is my belief that a proper woman IS always under the oversight of a Man. Whether it be her Father, her Husband, a Brother, or her Son in certain situations.

In terms of manner of dress; I think there's a happy medium and I also believe that it depends on where one is going and with whom. What a woman wears in her own home for the entertainment of her Husband shouldn't necessarily be what she wears going out to dinner with him or to church or court. There are parts of a woman's body that should not be seen by anyone but herself and her Husband.

 

[Ravi]

The bible was written by man. Nuff said.

Yep. The problem isn't religion. The problem is men.

Men make good pets but other than that....

 

[jillian]

All of this wearing casual clothes to go worship God in his house is absolutely ridiculous.

If you had an invitation to go to the White House to meet the President (Bush/Obama) to have dinner with a CEO of a major company; maybe even the Pope.

I bet what you would wear your finest clothes and be groomed to the max.

Yet people go to worship the Master and Creator of the Universe.

And dress as though they're going to a flea market or swap meet.

You are on this one, SM. God accepts where they are when they meet Him. He did not expect the disciples and their families to dress up, and He does not expect you to do so either.

True, when you first become aware of G-d you can be wearing anything.

But once you start going to visit him in his house. Then it's a matter of proper respect to dress up in your finest. Even the Kings of the earth and the ancient Prophets in the Torah (O.T.) would wear their finest when going to worship G-d. Should we do any less?

i think G-d would prefer that a sincere begger in worn clothes show up than a rich man who goes to show off his fine clothes.

 

[High_Gravity]

Hey I like uncovered women.

 

[Sunni Man]

i think G-d would prefer that a sincere begger in worn clothes show up than a rich man who goes to show off his fine clothes.

I don't disagree with you there Jillian..

But a rich man in fine clothes can also be sincere.

Many people think that being poor is a virtue.

When in reality it is just their station in life.

And has nothing to do with sincerity.

 

[Sunni Man]

Hey I like uncovered women.

I never would have guessed that.

 

[catzmeow]

I can't help but wonder if you are only asking this to be spiteful. In any case, I will try to answer.

As long as the father is asking her to act Godly. If he is asking her to act more modest and decent then yes. However, if he is asking her to act whorish and slutty then no. The daughter would know if the father is asking her to act Godly or not.

I have not read anything that says she has to move back into her father's house. However, is one verse where the daughter was told to go live with her father and another one where it states 'if' the daughter was to go back to live with her father. Neither one is saying that if the daughter is a widow she 'has' to.

Gen 38:11 Then said Judah to Tamar his daughter in law, Remain a widow at thy father's house, till Shelah my son be grown: for he said, Lest peradventure he die also, as his brethren did. And Tamar went and dwelt in her father's house.

Lev 22:13 But if the priest's daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father's house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father's meat: but there shall no stranger eat thereof.

Again, if the father is asking her these things due to the fact he wants her to be more Godly then yes. However, we are told that if a woman is widowed under a certain age she should remarry. So if she is under that age then the father can not tell her she can not date.

Also if she is not living in her father's house, then it would be hard for her not to work to pay her own bills.

And as to her clothes, if she is a Godly woman her father should not have to tell her what to wear.

First off, I'm going to be brutally honest. I think your views are whack, and I wouldn't tolerate a man attempting to tell me what to do. My dad gives me great advice, but I don't answer to him.

However, in my opinion, you have every right to follow your conscience in your personal life and matters of faith, as long as you extend that same right to other people. I find your beliefs interesting. I grew up fundy, but the fundy I grew up with is fundy-lite in comparison to your beliefs. I don't say that to be disrespectful.

Why do you think that your faith puts women in such a subordinate role? Does it have to do with Eve or something else? Do you think that women are inherently incompetent to live without a minder?

 

[Anachronism]

Why do you think that your faith puts women in such a subordinate role? Does it have to do with Eve or something else? Do you think that women are inherently incompetent to live without a minder?

As the grandson of a man who was a Lutheran minister for more than 60 years, I'll give you my take on why many Conservative Christian denominations place women in a lesser status than Men. In part it does go back to Eve, but it really has little to do with the tree or the snake or anything like that. It has to do with the Biblical commenary that God was looking for a "helper" for Adam when He created Eve.

 

[catzmeow]

As the grandson of a man who was a Lutheran minister for more than 60 years, I'll give you my take on why many Conservative Christian denominations place women in a lesser status than Men. In part it does go back to Eve, but it really has little to do with the tree or the snake or anything like that. It has to do with the Biblical commenary that God was looking for a "helper" for Adam when He created Eve.

My guy and I help each other all of the time, but thankfully, he doesn't think he needs to be the boss. We decide things by consensus. Which, actually, is usually easy because we're both easy-going and like to make each other happy.

I think that a lot of times, leadership is a gift or an art. Seizing power doesn't work, but to guys who don't know how to be a leader, it seems like the right thing to do.

I'm middle aged now, and it seems to me that marriages are a lot happier when no one cares who has the power.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

The following is our family's understanding of what God has revealed to us in His Word. We do not intend for anyone to interpret this as an extra-biblical mandate; it is simply our response to what we see in scripture.

Biblically, the principles in scripture indicate that a woman of any age is never to be uncovered. She is either a daughter of a father, or the wife of a husband. And in some circumstances a believing woman is under the headship of the elders in a biblically-functioning church. (Headship and covering meaning under the oversight and authority and care of.)

The authority of a father over the unmarried daughter does not and should not change when they reach a certain age--though our modern society will try to tell us differently! This covering is not to be a drudge or a weight upon the shoulders of a daughter (or wife), but one that should be embraced whole-heartily with gratefulness and appreciation. It has such rich blessings and is a treasure. An unmarried woman who finds peace and contentment under her father's covering now will find an even greater peace and contentment being under her godly husband's covering. We are to be joyfully submissive and appreciate this headship just like we are to joyfully submit to Christ's headship.

Biblical Vision for Daughters over 20? - Being Virtuous Women

There are many examples of female submssion/male patriarchalism in religions around the world (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism--particularly fundamentalist LDS). What do you think of the opinions above? Are women the property/responsibility/subordinates of men, required by God to submit to the headship of a man (their father or husband)? Do women require the oversight of a man in order to be in line with God's will for their lives? Is this concept workable in a modern era?

Or, are such teachings abusive and barbaric?

What were they quoting from ? To me it looked like an opinion developed from cherry picked scripture.

 

[Anachronism]

I think that a lot of times, leadership is a gift or an art. Seizing power doesn't work, but to guys who don't know how to be a leader, it seems like the right thing to do.

I'm middle aged now, and it seems to me that marriages are a lot happier when no one cares who has the power.

In my mind it's not about seizing power or giving power away. It's about the natural order of things. I understand that's not a terribly popular viewpoint on this topic in the modern age, but that's how I see it and how I always will see it.

 

[AllieBaba]

Why do you think that your faith puts women in such a subordinate role? Does it have to do with Eve or something else? Do you think that women are inherently incompetent to live without a minder?

As the grandson of a man who was a Lutheran minister for more than 60 years, I'll give you my take on why many Conservative Christian denominations place women in a lesser status than Men. In part it does go back to Eve, but it really has little to do with the tree or the snake or anything like that. It has to do with the Biblical commenary that God was looking for a "helper" for Adam when He created Eve.

Anach is an idiot. Conservative Christian denominations don't afford women less STATUS, it's not about status. It's about a working hierarchy. Women are treasured by Christians as they were treasured by Christ.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

If only they would read what they are quoting.

 

[catzmeow]

It's about the natural order of things. I understand that's not a terribly popular viewpoint on this topic in the modern age, but that's how I see it and how I always will see it.

The natural order is always referenced when a man is looking for a reason to dominate a woman simply because he owns a penis. I don't buy it. I mean, penises are cute and all, in their place, but they don't equate to brains or competence.

As far as it not being terribly popular, I'm sure it's popular in the woman-hating he-man club, but it's not terribly popular with self sufficient women, for obvious reasons. I'm not interested in playing pretend anywhere outside the bedroom. I'm not going to dumb myself down for a partner. If he can't love me, as I am, then he's not for me.

I'm every bit as intelligent, competent, articulate and capable as any man I've ever worked with. They may be larger physically, but I can overlook such obvious flaws (like requiring a larger package when a smaller one will do).

It would be impossible for my guy to be threatened by my equality. He's just not that insecure. Which, in my book, is just one of the signs that he's more masculine than most. The guys who need this sort of ego boost, in my experience (and I was married to one), are guys who aren't very confident about themselves. The guys who need to justify their own manliness using the bible are usually the lamest.

 

[Anachronism]

The natural order is always referenced when a man is looking for a reason to dominate a woman simply because he owns a penis. I don't buy it.

That's fine. One of the amazing things about Right and Wrong is that they exist whether people choose to embrace them or not.

As far as it not being terribly popular, I'm sure it's popular in the woman-hating he-man club, but it's not terribly popular with self sufficient women, for obvious reasons.

Of course not. I mean why wouldn't any group of self-suffient women want to continue the complete and utter destruction of American society, with the help of their gutless, panty-waisted husbands and male children who continue to enable their behavior?

I'm every bit as intelligent, competent, articulate and capable as any man I've ever worked with. They may be larger physically, but I can overlook such obvious flaws.

Human existance has never been about what a person CAN do, but rather what a person SHOULD do. When we lost sight of that, our entire species ceased to have any value we ever had.

 

[catzmeow]

]That's fine. One of the amazing things about Right and Wrong is that they exist whether people choose to embrace them or not.

So, male dominance = right, and female equality = wrong. Duly noted. You're entitled to your opinion, as we all are. I just would like to point out that your opinion is wrong.

Of course not. I mean why wouldn't any group of self-suffient women want to continue the complete and utter destruction of American society, with the help of their gutless, panty-waisted husbands and male children who continue to enable their behavior?

I'll be sure to let my power-tool wielding military serving significant other know that he's a gutless pantywaist. I'm sure that will amuse him to no end.

But really, you don't give us nearly enough credit. Don't you know that feminists are also singlehandedly responsible for causing the ghey epidemic, global hunger, the rise in hurricanes, socialism in the U.S., a black man in the presidency, and the forest fires of 2011? Sheesh. What do we have to do to get the word out about our hard work?

Human existance has never been about what a person CAN do, but rather what a person SHOULD do. When we lost sight of that, our entire species ceased to have any value we ever had.

So, in your book, what women SHOULD do is be barefoot, pregnant, silent and submissive, while you call all the shots, regardless of intellect or competence? I can't imagine why women aren't beating down your door in droves.

Of course, I'd encourage you to date down here, preferably in rural mississipppi. There are lots of single girls in trailers who can't manage their affairs and would be happy for some male oversight.

 

[Si modo]

If only they would read what they are quoting.

Some can't read much of anything and comprehend it. Others just have such a bad case of confirmation bias that they even make shit up from nothing.

 

[Anachronism]

So, male dominance = right, and female equality = wrong. Duly noted. You're entitled to your opinion, as we all are. I just would like to point out that your opinion is wrong.

Equality and Sameness are not interchangeable ideals. What Feminism and the Women's Movement seek is not EQUALITY, but SAMENESS. They want to remove the lines between the genders completely. Four quarters has an EQUAL value to a dollar bill. However they are NOT ths SAME coinage, and in many situations one may be of no use despite the fact that they have the exact same overall value.

I've been told my opinion on this matter is wrong before. I'll be told it again in the future. When I start worrying about or concerning myself with anyone else's opinion on this topic I'll be sure to note your dissent.

I'll be sure to let my power-tool wielding military serving significant other know that he's a gutless pantywaist. I'm sure that will amuse him to no end.

I'm sure it will. However, his military service (which I thank him for) and his ability to wield power tools do not make him any less a part of the problem than the gutless metrosexual males who dominate the area of the country I live in.

But really, you don't give us nearly enough credit. Don't you know that feminists are also singlehandedly responsible for causing the ghey epidemic, global hunger, the rise in hurricanes, socialism in the U.S., a black man in the presidency, and the forest fires of 2011? Sheesh. What do we have to do to get the word out about our hard work?

Nah. I wouldn't go anywhere near that far. Socialism, I'll give you folks partial credit but beyond that and the destruction of the Nuclear Family and American society you don't get a whole lot more.

So, in your book, what women SHOULD do is be barefoot, pregnant, silent and submissive, while you call all the shots, regardless of intellect or competence? I can't imagine why women aren't beating down your door in droves.

Not quite, but I'm sure that's how it will be portrayed no mater how I attempt to explain it, so I'm not really sure it's worth wasting the time and energy to explain it. If you're REALLY interested in the explaination let me know. Otherwise I'll leave it at that.

I DON'T WANT modern women beating down my door, thank you very much. They're the LAST THING I want in my life, thank you very much.

Of course, I'd encourage you to date down here, preferably in rural mississipppi. There are lots of single girls in trailers who can't manage their affairs and would be happy for some male oversight.

I've always felt that I should have been born South of the Mason-Dixon Line rather than North of it. I have had the pleasure of spending some time in the South and generally find both the women and the Men to be much more agreeable to my way of looking at the world down there than in this cesspool called New England. However, it seems to be rather difficult to find someone down there willing to pay me nearly $35 an hour to work for them in that area of the country.