Marilyn Says

>> "The Afghan, Pakistani, Iranian and Iraqis I know who are muslims are the least oppressed women I have ever met."

OMG I din't realise you had entirely taken leave of your senses.

Well i guess that must be because Afghanistan, Pakistan Iran and Iraq are the least oppressive countries for women. Maybe if we had sharia law here all of our women would be less oppressed as well.

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my whole time on OLO. Thaks for the laugh Marilyn.

Whilst I can empathize with bennie on that one, we must be fair. Jews, Christians and Muslims all interpret the Bible (Koran). Orthodox Jews certainly don't take a literal interpretation of a book written in a very ancient language. They rely on Rabbinical views formed over at least three thousand years. Problem in all faiths come from literalists, frequently relying on their own translations.

So I understand do main stream Christians and Muslims.

Fractelle: In another thread I discussed how BD uses Islamic sources to qualify the relevance and context of the Qu’ranic passages chosen. As his usage of the Qu’ran is consistent with Islamic scholarship, I am in no position to argue.

The link below is a hard slog, however, understanding the bible – including this challenging passage from Corinthians - is accessible to everyone. You don't need a degree in theology but you do need to drill a bit deeper. The author demonstrates:

1) credibility – he is not pushing a particular doctrine or agenda
2) context - historical and cultural
3) meaning - using the original language
4) relevancy – of other scholarship, both ancient (Plutarch) and modern
5) consistency – through extensive cross-referencing
6) application – in the context of modern life

SEE:
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2820

CONCLUSION:
“We must distinguish between the fundamental principle that underlies a text and the application of that principle in a specific culture. The fundamental principle is that the sexes, although equal, are also different. God has ordained that men have the responsibility to lead, while women have a complementary and supportive role…. Now, in the first century, failure to wear a covering sent a signal to the congregation that a woman was rejecting the authority of male leadership. Paul was concerned about head coverings only because of the message they sent to people in that culture.
Today, except in certain religious groups, if a woman fails to wear a head covering while praying or prophesying, no one thinks she is in rebellion…. Nevertheless, that does not mean that this text does not apply to our culture. The principle still stands that women should pray and prophesy in a manner that makes it clear that they submit to male leadership…. The principle enunciated here should be applied in a variety of ways given the diversity of the human situation.”

You quote something out of context and then others quickly jump in and agree with your hasty assumptions, proving only that ignorance spreads virally.

Marilyn: The Malaysian, Lebanese and Iranian Muslims that I know live in Australia.

Marilyn, it must have been the freedoms they endured at Baxter that made them all so unoppressed. Just wait till they see the other side of the razor wire. Awesome dude.

katieO: << "Nevertheless, that does not mean that this text does not apply to our culture. The principle still stands that women should pray and prophesy in a manner that makes it clear that they submit to male leadership…. The principle enunciated here should be applied in a variety of ways given the diversity of the human situation.." >>

To me, this is just good old patriarchal hogwash. It's only a tiny step of credulity from this twaddle to the burqua.

What really interests me is the degree of sophistry deployed by the religious crusaders to assert that their version of patriarchal myth is better than the others - rooted as they all are in the myths and legends of primitive Iron Age goat herding tribes.

Those who rattle on about headscarves worn by Muslim women seem utterly blind to the similarity in form and function to the headscarves worn by women in many societies, including until quite recently our own.

This is not an issue on which Christians in particular will get much traction. Just look at Nuns, Exclusive Brethren and the Mormons who've been all over the news lately, for obvious examples of their own patriarchal clothing fetishes.

KatieO quoted: "Nevertheless, that does not mean that this text does not apply to our culture. The principle still stands that women should pray and prophesy in a manner that makes it clear that they submit to male leadership…."

Right.. OK.. so this is a GOOD thing?? I am confused.. you are presumably a woman KatieO? Yet you used the passage above to illustrate your point that somehow it is good (or relatively so) to be female in the Christian faith?? Bloody hell..