CJ,

You silly-billy! Can't you see how different the two are? Women should "ideally" cover their heads as a visible reminder that when the god created humanity woman was a mere afterthought: women(plural) were made FOR men(plural) and that little bit of cloth is her badge of servitude and reminds everyone of her sexual function - which, because of Eve, she has abused and used to her own ends ever since.

But when women cover their whole bodies that is taking things too far: it means that the god created each woman for each man exclusively and so you can't sit in church fantasizing about spagetti straps or go around admiring a "long, lean leg" which is just plain unfair.

Remember, there is no question either from the Koran or the Bible that women are inferior to men, its unarguable through any scriptures as BD has gone to tedious length to prove to us. But Christians need them to be visible in the world so they can prove Eve's perfidy while those darn mozzies jolly well try to limit the damage. Nasty spoil sports.

It's interesting to see the example of "make it up as you go bible following" on this thread.

"even IF I was tending toward the idea of 'believing' (if not practicing) some kind of hair(not head) covering for women in Church, it would be a gentle persuasion approach and a choice by them..not a 'law'." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1818#36127

"My own thinking on this issue is that in a meeting, we should do our utmost to symbolize the creation mandate as linked by Paul to the issue itself. (Hair covering)" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1818#36144

"We are 'open'... we don't enforce those ideas.. I would personally prefer that we were closer to the Biblical ideal, but that would be a choice matter." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1818#36237

"It's more the domain of the older Bretho's.. but.. that does not mean I don't see it as an ideal to work towards." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1818#36333

David has moved in a short space from even "IF I was tending toward the idea of 'believing' (if not practicing)" to "that does not mean I don't see it as an ideal to work towards."

Meanwhile his denominational group has had a new word from god telling them that the previous interpretion of the head covering thing as literal was not actually literal which some of the ones David considers older missed out on hearing (hearing aids had flat batteries maybe).

I recall many years ago visiting a weeknight meeting at a local bretho church with a female friend (head uncovered) to hear a visiting missionary speaker and being appauled by the speaker. The speaker went to great lengths in praising a christain they had met in a south american country who did not attend church because the women in the local churches did not cover their hair and this christain did not want to fellowship with disobediant christains.

Some sad priorities and it made my friend feel really good as the only woman present with hair uncovered.

It's not only those without a god who make it up as we go apparently.

R0bert

Boazy, I know you're busy on other threads trying to whip up support for your crusade against Islam, but do you think you could clarify for us what this "Creation mandate" is, and how exactly it allows you to discriminate against women in your "ideals" for your church?

As you can tell from the above comments, you haven't convinced anybody that your "ideals" with respect to covering women's hair are significantly different from those of fundamentalist Muslims.

CJ Morgan, I think that there is a significant difference between the christain headcovering thing and the islamic covering up stuff. If I understand it the main thrust of the islamist cover up is that women are to sexy for men to cope with whereas the christain headcovering is to demonstrate that women are less than men (woman is to man as man is to god type of thing).

R0bert

"They seek him here
They seek him there..."
haven't you guys worked it out yet? Like the Scarlet Pimpernel our DB sneaks quietly off when things start getting a little hot.

These forums are littered with entreaties for him to come on back and finish what he started. The minute he gets called on an idea or hypothesis that just doesn't cut it, off he slithers so he can say exactly the same thing all over again somewhere else.

Which is why I don't take his "I'm trying to bring you all to the lord" stuff too seriously. I think he just likes reading his own words: its obvious he never does more than skim over anyone elses. Sitting down and trying to think of a riposte that varies from "God says" would take too much time away from his intense "research" on youtube.

Romany, I suspect that it's largely about bragging rights for the wednesday night prayer group. David can humbly mention all his good works in trying to bring us heathen to the lord as he raises prayer points thereby scoring points for his tireless missionary work.

R0bert