This doesn't make sense to Don. Most people recognise that
1 Cor 11 teaches women ought to wear a headcovering when praying or prophesying. Unfortunately, most American and Western European people believe the command was "for then, but times have changed and is no longer something we need to do".
God commanded Levites to blow trumpets, silver trumpets, which were an invention of man. So God changes a custom (people blew trumpets for all sorts of reasons in ye olden dayes) into a command, and even establishes a particular annual Feast Day for blowing trumpets. God also commanded Levites to praise God using stringed instruments and cymbals, something once again invented by men. So once again God is seen "changing a custom into a command". And once again Don is seen across the street beyond left field waving his banner that nobody left in the game is paying attention to.
Don has some explaining to do, like how is it that Paul explicitly says a woman is to be covered when praying or prophesying, yet Don thinks not so? Or how Don continues to believe that the only thing that can be a command is whatever was commanded to Adam and Eve? Why does Don disregard the words of both the Lord (through Moses) and Jesus Christ Himself, who jointly affirmed that man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY word that proceeds out of the mouth of God? Including
1 Cor 11? Etc etc.
This statement by Don proves that Don is either totally ignorant of the subject, in which case he is absolutely no authority on the subject, or else he is intentionally attempting to mislead people, in which case again he is absolutely no authority on the subject. I haven't found a single person in all of history anywhere at any time who pretends that historically the majority of women did not wear some kind of head covering, across practically all cultures and time periods. As stated previously several times, those customs varied from place to place and time to time, but generally the idea that a woman would have a head covering was not seen as anything "newfangled and innovative". Further, Don once again begs the question, "if nature leads all women in the same direction"? Says who? Why, Don says, that's who. Paul asserted to the Corinthians that nature teaches them something, which lesson from nature is supportive of his instruction regarding headcovering (as applied to both men and women). We already discussed what "nature" means Biblically, and especially in Paul's writings, which discussion Don is conveniently pretending did not take place, as evidenced by his use of "nature" as if it were somehow culturally independent.
In Don's world of minecraft, women didn't used to have long hair.
I'm sorry, but the only people seriously asking this type of question would be toddlers raised on 1980s sitcoms only.
Then why even raise the question? And why the "caution"? Don would have us determine doctrine based on his absurd vague soundbites about "instincts", which I am sure are not nearly as authoritative as recorded known history, and certainly not as informative.
Look at the duplicity here. This is called "straw-manning". Nobody, including the apostle Paul, said "nature shows us the veil is a command of God." That idea only exists in Don's mind. And that is because Don either cannot understand what is being said to him, or because he has an agenda. Lest anyone think Don hasn't been informed on this point, once again, Paul says nature teaches a lesson, namely, that long hair is a shame to a man but a glory to a woman. THAT is the lesson from nature. Not that "women should wear a veil". The lesson from nature CORROBORATES and SUPPORTS and ILLUSTRATES what Paul is teaching. Paul teaches a man should be uncovered and a woman should be covered when praying or prophesying. Nature teaches long hair is a shame to a man and a glory to woman. The two lessons follow a similar trajectory regarding the "covering" and "uncovering" of the two genders, and thus are correlative. This has been explained multiple times, yet Don persists in this "well, does nature teach us that women ought to wear a headcovering?" There is only one explanation for this behaviour that satisfies Occam's Razor.
Reason would say that Don is either a dishonest heretic or else is incompetent to carry on a conversation about the Bible. A supporter of natural law? God's commandments are now said to be a "supporter of Natural Law"? Which clearly places "Natural Law" as the PRIMARY thing, and God's commandments as a supplemtary and explanatory and illustrative support for this supposed "Natural Law". Good grief.
And once again we see the "there can be no new testament command because it wasn't already commanded in the old testament", which doctrine is nowhere found in either the old testament or the new testament. I suppose the source for this bizarre unbiblical doctrine is Don's personal "natural instincts". Which reminds me of something the Bible says, that Amanah previously posted, about people only knowing what they know by "natural instincts" or something, like the brute beasts.
I am sure this thread will continue with multiple replies from Don where he will rehash the same old same old tired nonsense about instincts, Adam and Eve, the old testament doesn't command something therefore the new testament can't command it, Natural Law, did women really have long hair before the 20th century? did women really wear head coverings before some people on AFF started posting about it? yada yada yada blah blah blah yackety shmackety.
And, occasionally, when I am bored, I will pop in and remind Don and everybody else that he is wrong on the interwebs once again.
Linear Mode
