I did not realise that David was part of the Brethren. Now I understand.

Sometimes I cannot believe what I read – head coverings for women for goodness sake. David you are a mirror image of everything you accuse Islam but yet you cannot see. Same story; different book.

Can you not see the hypocrisy? Is it possible for you to step back from your strongly held belief to question for a while what it is you are espousing.

Do you really see women as created for man? That men are the image and glory of God while woman [merely] the glory of man”. I am gobsmacked. What exactly does that mean? The 'glory of man' implies a God-like status for men which I though in itself was blasphemy. Please explain.

You like quotes here's one: “There are none so blind as those who will not see”.

Or if I can turn a quote from the Bible around to illustrates my point (albeit from a Google search):

Jeremiah 5:21
“Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:”

Or

Matthew 13:13
“13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing: see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand”

It just goes to show people will see and hear exactly what they wish to suit their own agenda and specific point of view even if absurd.

As an atheist I hope that I would always use some level of rationality, logic, reasoning and humanity in what I put forward.

True companionship and love between a man and a woman can only exist if the two partners see and respect each other as equal partners in the relationship. And I am not talking about whose turn it is to wash up.

Anyway must go and take these shoes off and get back to the kitchen.

Sheesh...just when you think you have heard everything.

I'm HERE :)

sorry team, I was not aware that many were seeking...me.

Pelican..let me dispel ONE thing immediately.. "Brethren' ooh..now I understand" utter rubbish :) I came to the Lord in a BAPTist context and it was THEY who recommended a particular open Bretho assembly in Melbourne. (so much for denominational competition eh) I've never felt entirely comfortable with the Bretho system.. too many older ones into Dispensationalism for me.. but now.. if you went to say Crossway Bap, ours, or a host of other evangelical Churches you would not know the diff.

ROBERT.. *grrrrr*.. 'women less than men'....aaarrgh....

No Rob..no no no.... not at all. More like 2 pieces of a jigsaw which complement each other and fill out the bigger picture.

YES.. The bible speaks of 'woman formed from man' etc.. God is the head of Christ who is the head of man, and man is the head of woman....I sure arn't going to revise scripture :)

(point to note.. Jesus the Son is equal to the Father and the Spirit according to Trinitarian doctrine :)

All I can say is that it does not suggest to me, that woman is 'less' than man. She is DIFFerently enabled..... (and in some ways better enabled)

CJ.. the Creation mandate..or.pattern.. is described in Genesis, and referred to in Pauls writings. (Ephesians and Corinthians)

At home? hmm 'they shall become one flesh'....in public...I guess Paul had his reasons for desiring (commanding) this hair covering, and he knew when he spoke with Gods authority and his own opinion, he says as much in a few places.

I don't know why people want to get so hung up on this, because it realllly is not much of a deal. We love and respect our bosses....they know how to play us like a fiddle :)

Thanks for the reponse Boazy - but I'm still no closer to understanding this 'Creation mandate' or how it relates to women's hair being somehow offensive to your God.

What I do understand is that your ideas about women, and their inferior relationship to your God to that of men, derives from your interpretation of Paul's writings. If it was good enough for Paul to want women to cover their hair, then it's good enough for Boazy.

'Nuff said.

Dear CJ.. 'annnnd another thing' *frown*

mate... I am not the one starting all these 'Islam' related threads.. I'm just a humble (at times) participant..

You keep on frothing about my 'hate' blah blah..but really.. if you took the trouble and made an effort to follow my last post through on the Keysar thread.. where I quote 'their' scholars till even "I" must look like I'm wearing a turban.. and see that they all concur with what I'm saying.. I'ts not 'ME'...it's....'them'... I'm simply saying "IF..'this' is what Islam really teaches" (when they are not ducking for cover in a country where they are minority)..then surely, such values are not healthy or wholesome or even in the slightest bit 'good'.....

The very thought of DIVORCING a pre-menstrual child an old man might have impregnated.. is repugnant in the extreme..

No one is saying "Because God ordered the elimination of the Canaanites we should do so for such and such a group in God's name" because if they did, it would be seen as invalid. But in the case referred to above.. it IS for the 'here and now' if the truth be known.

Stop picking on me ya bully:)

This is the part where you lose all credibility with me, Boaz.

>>The very thought of DIVORCING a pre-menstrual child an old man might have impregnated.. is repugnant in the extreme..

No one is saying "Because God ordered the elimination of the Canaanites we should do so for such and such a group in God's name" because if they did, it would be seen as invalid. But in the case referred to above.. it IS for the 'here and now' if the truth be known.<<

Please, explain to me again, very slowly, the difference that you perceive between smiting Canaanites and divorcing a pre-menstrual child.

I have heard of the former, but not the latter, but assume that they are both instructions contained in ancient scriptures.

What, exactly, causes them to differ?

Leave aside for a moment the fact that you clearly believe in one set of ancient writings but not in another set of ancient writings.

Leave aside, if you can, the content of both. For the purposes of my question, they may be regarded as nothing more than two recipes. Or two shopping lists. Or two train timetables.

What is it that allows you to determine that one version may be treated as metaphor or allegory - at your personal choosing - but that the other one is specific and immutably literal?

It is irrelevant that you can quote scholars to appear to agree with you, if you cannot accept that there are just as many scholars who believe that smiting Canaanites a) was a valid political manoeuvre and b) was entirely appropriate to the mores of those times.

harambolos>"is this what patriarchy expects of them?"

No, it's what feminist idiots like you keep telling themselves and other women to make them feel bad about their biological role.

Physical weakness doesn't lend itself to doing heavy labour or hunting. Being female lends itself to birthing children.

That you see particularly the latter as burdensome is extremely perverted and it's a shame that your characterisation appears to holds so much currency among people.

harambolus>"It is a sad state of affairs when half the world's population is treated like slaves."

Those are your own words. If you see being female as slavery then I have no sympathy for you.