Once a women comes to faith in Jesus Christ, He then is her covering and there is no biblical reason for a scarf. Before salvation, an earthly father or authority is her covering.
@LottieSue it was cultural at that time in life...that is why Paul said for the woman to cover their heads in corinthians chapter 11....some legalistic christians with a lack of understanding can not discern it as the culture of the time...religion has always been oppressive to woman and it still is...our world has barely evolved beyond this!
Here in Greece (Orthodox Cristians), women used to wear veil/hijab/madila(μαντίλα) a lot. Every woman in the churche used to wear veil. Nowadays only grandmas wear it, but some yong girls start to wear veils again.
In Russia tho all women still wear veils in church.
...all the thing is to wear it becouse you want to.
today we see women in the beach wearing too peaces of paper and all the males are looking at her and become horny and when men are horny they become more agressive . this is why women shuld wear veils ...
The Quran does not tell women to cover their hair. The word HIJAB is only ever used to mean partition/barrier, and never in relation to a woman's hair.
Neither God, Muhammad, Jesus or Moses taught such a law in the Scriptures.
It is only Paul in the New Testament who makes an issue of women's hair because she is the "glory of man".
Men and women of most cultures covered their head up until the sexual revolution of the 1960s, for reasons of modesty/repectability/status.
@perrik7 lol female genital mutilation? where on earth Quran said about female genital mutilation?
even their prophet did not do FGM to his daughter,
and Indonesia allow FGM? have you been to that country?
FGM in Indonesia, is not cutting Clitoris at All, only a tiny bit of Clitoris hood, and they have been practiced it since centuries and it's their Cultural believe not Islamic law
@perrik7 lol it's talk about altering creation and following satan, see scholar interpertation, and FGM is not permited
and Leviticus 19:28 "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead" in response for a tradition of Self-mutilation, such as the cutting off of toes or fingers as sign of respect for the deceased, so not to Forbid FGM, Ethiopian Jews in "Why aren't Jewish women circumcised?: gender and covenant in Judaism" page 59 " said "women are excised in the Jewish manner"
@perrik7 altering creation e.g FGM, that is the interpretation of surah
ow so bible had version,each must be from different perspective of different GOD and the fact is none of these version forbid FGM
islamic judaism? those Beta israelis did FGM since 2nd century BC, reported by Agatharchides
btw im out here friends, just simply providing FACT, that Majority of Muslims consensus held centuries ago said Covering Face is not required in the Islamic Law but still allowed as cultural practices
@perrik7 and about FGM, Majority of Muslim banned FGM for non Medic Situation, but allowed "clitoridotomy" in term of Clitoral Hood Reduction not Removal as Cultural practices.
@perrik7 majority muslim scholar banned FGM @ but allowed clitoridotomy at Cairo meeting , that's mean majority of muslim didn't do such practiced since they follow the Fatwa of their respected scholar ,
who count it? something like Australia's THE FAMILY LAW COUNCIL, on their Report of FGM page 10 stated "2.17 Female genital mutilation is not practiced in predominantly Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria, Pakistan and the Gulf States"
@perrik7 false? prove it, and so something like Australia's THE FAMILY LAW COUNCIL is islamic institution? and their report is fake? lol you only talk BS without basis,
@perrik7 lol another BS and what evidence?, fact sharia law ban mutilation e.g FGM since centuries ago, read islamic law in hadist "Sahih Bukhari, Oppressions, Volume 3, Book 43, Number 654" mutilation or maiming of bodies is Forbidden.
Majority of Muslims against FGM, only non-devout Tribal Muslim against these Law
shaadah, professing monotheism and accepting Muhammad as God's messenger, Quran stated "obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you" (4: 59)
obey the messenger is following hadith
hadith may vary, but hadith about circumcision not , so Altering God Creation is forbidden , FGM is forbidden, but men Circumcision, cutting hair allowed
2nd pillars of islam is Shalat, and how muslims pray? it's detailed in hadith
@perrik7 God command ,Quran doesn't have version, but it's true hadith makes muslims branches since those charged with authority (4: 59) sometimes interpret Quran with hadith differently . All these branches are different in their religious practice but sometimes produce common Law or Fatwa, it called Ijma or consensus, but as long as the Shaadah is same, then he/she is a Muslims. So basically no branches in basic faith, but division about minor religious practice e.g Taraweeh in Ramadan.
1. Ijma or Conceccus of all muslims stated FGM is haram wih Quran and Hadith basis.
2. Australia THE FAMILY LAW COUNCIL investigate FGM practice stated in their report : "Female genital mutilation is not practiced in predominantly Islamic countries".
3. In US Clitoral Unhooding, Labiaplasty ,Vaginoplasty still Legal and considered Plastic Surgery.
@perrik7 so me where bible specificaly forbid FGM? in Kenya those Christian did FGM for ages, and also Ethiopian Jews because There is no where in the Bible that FGM is talked. and their history of doing FGM is much more Older within the region
@hextai111 Ethiopian Jews are not practicing this anymore, it only happen in the past when they had Muslim dad. christians have many intepertations to the bible and some permits it.
The bible mention many times that you must not make a cutting in the flesh (for example Leviticus 19:28).
@perrik7 - ummm she covered her "face" so that he wouldn't know who she was... that has nothing to do with hair coverings... The hair being covered as is spoken of in Numbers 5 is what is being spoken about.
@perrik7 - i'm not a muslim but I have some living around me... none of them cover their face... only the hair. i've only seen a handful in person doing that... though I believe its a law in Saudi Arabia... not most places. so does that make you a liar? my point is stop calling people names pointlessly.
@perrik7 you dont know Burqa is not part of islamic law, its traditional law, burqa is for Taliban sect followers only, and Veil with Niqab is only traditonal Law of Wahabi sect , Islamic law in quran only said about Covering your head not your face , how can they lies? when even bible said similar stuff
@perrik7 permitted but not necessary, and not part of islamic law, face cover thats some tribes traditional law, only tiny minority of Muslim wearing burqa and niqab, the biggest muslim community in this world like india 153 million muslims or Indonesia 200 million muslims, dont require face covering at all only head Cover like Veil, it seems it is you who dont understand islamic law at all yet accusing all muslim women should wear face cover
@ukzane how many muslim women in UK or Morroco wear Burqa? and How many Afganistani women Wear Burqa? thats the fact, Veil is not the same like Burqa , so pls educate your self before talkin
Devout muslim women wear Hijab, what is Hijab? it is something to guard their modesty Quran 24:31
it can be Veil, Abaya, Veil+niqab, Burqa, or a loose non tight clothing
the type of Hijab r vary from Sect to sect . Taliban wear Burqa, Wahabis wear Veil+niqab , but majority of Muslim only wear Veil
@SatchmoSings Sex means gender. We have changed the word sexual intercourse to " sex ". We also have separated the activity of sexual intercourse from love between spouses. Now instead of an act of creation - it is frequently an act of destruction...STDs, abortions, rejection of the partner when someone new comes along, etc. Separating sex from marriage is like separating bran,starch,& germ from the whole grain of wheat...people make money & power from it but the health & balance is gone.
@SatchmoSings Unfortunately slang has entered modern dictionaries. Sexual acts in a commandment obedient marriage is not harmful.Driving a car in a law abiding way ( by you & the other person ) is not harmful. Again, eating while ignoring the commandments is harmful.
@midleground You are rather wrong in your claim of people in Iran/Pakistan/Afghanistan wanting freedom; only in Iran do people really want freedom; the other two countries, most of the people there are AGAINST freedom.
imma male n i wear it cuz i have beautiful hair.. i am a jewish christian muslim .. and i believe a mans hair is sacred .. he needs to shave his ass hair n give it to his grandpa when hes reaches the age of erection.. then he must suck his grandpa off for noah.. and jesus.. n moses.. n mohammad... they like this..
ye but the woman should have the choice to wear it or not, and not be forced to do it, then they are being oppressed. And gd said cover your hair right, not the rest of your face too...
@CinRandom if woman covers their body they would be less cases of victims of rape.. by wearing hijab woman can hide their assets.. who like to showoff their body.. slut maybe.
@TIKUSHUTAN91 well women should not have to be covered up just not to be raped, men should have more self control. And if a man wants to rape someone he probably has his mind set on it no matter what shes wearing he knows what he wants. and just because people dont wear the veil, or cover up from head to toe does not mean they are sluts...
@TIKUSHUTAN91 Yes, everytime I see a good-looking woman it's her fault if I rape her; if I see a nice car and take it, it's the fault of the owner for buying such a nice car that I'd want it.
If I pass a cafe and I see someone eating something very nice, special and delicious-looking and I grab it, it's their fault for having ordered such a thing within the bounds of my senses; nothing is every my own fault!
@SatchmoSings what a dumb2 you are. it lies in your own hand to make the decision. its seems that you're missing the point.. okay bye.i'm just wasting my time talking to you. you are being defensive .:P
im an afghan, and there is no protest among the female afghans in afghanistan about removing the hijab. its not just part of our religion but also part of our culture.
Next time dont talk, bullshit, on behalf of others!
I am a Christian, and have always believed and practiced the headcovering. I love the idea of women having the right to be modest. Hollywood has pretended to free women, but it has enslaved them to working like men, high divorce rates, and fashions that make them look like harlots. In my Mennonite culture, women are free indeed! We are free to devote our feminine gifts to the nurture of those we love. We are truly happy living within our God-given role. And our families are stable.
@daffodyllady The man-given law of Republicanism is better; that's why over half of all people in medical schools are now women; Republicanism declares if someone has the ability to accomplish something, no arbitrary boundaries must stand in the way.
@SatchmoSings - I am a bible-believer and I know that most of what you are saying. I have read the founding documents and many of the writings of the "founders". Many of them were not "conservative Christians" as is purported today. Many had a very loose interpretation of God - and they wanted everyone to be free to choose. I know that a government "for they people, by the people" is much more Greco/Roman than biblical. So I get it. I will defend the bible at all times though!!
@daffodyllady - I agree with you wholeheartedly dear sister. Preach to them. When a woman is free to practice her feminity to your family - the society is better off - because families are more stable. God knew what He was doing!! Now everything is off-balance in the name of "commerce". They've confused women to think that "doing everything a man can do" is freedom... when it's really a by-product of the thirst for more, more, more economic growth. Btw - what is a Mennonite?
@Amidat Too bad you don't have the internet where you can look up the word "Mennonite;" you sure had me fooled, this way! Indeed, that's just what I would have done, rather than ask the poster.
Obviously, God DIDN'T know what he was doing because everywhere that people live or have lived under "God's Word" everything was tyrannical.
@SatchmoSings - and btw - those that don't live by God's Word are slaves to sin... and one day they will realize it... but it will be too late unless they repent. In any event - you have the "freedom" to do whatever you want to do. In the United States if you break the law - you will have to suffer the consequences. Well likewise - those who are on the wrong side of God's law will have to pay. People love sin... and so they don't like to be told they are wrong.
@Amidat So you point out, as many Christians have to me at various times that "those that don't live by God's Word are slaves to sin;" it's often put to me this way, "If you're not working FOR God, you're doing the work of Satan."
In exchange may I say that if you're not working to affirm the values of the US Constitution and Republicanism, you're obviously at work doing your best to destroy them.
@SatchmoSings - my question to her has nothing to do with you... so why did you choose to answer? If I don't feel like looking it up... isn't that my "right" in a Republic???? I didn't need to pretend I didn't know... I'm not that insecure!!
@Amidat Look, genius (you obviously get your intelligence and talent from this alleged God of yours; you definitely seem to have his level of intelligence) if you want to put your innermost remarks and thoughts up in a public place where literally BILLIONS of people can see them, you'd better be prepared for a response. If not, make your remarks in private, you boorish, ignorant dolt.
@SatchmoSings - someone like you has the nerve to call someone "boorish" and "ignorant"??? YOur behavior in this forum only shows have much those descriptions fit you. Of course your too blind to see that. In any event.. you are infringing on my rights to have a one on one discourse in a public forum... you are impeding my "pursuit of happiness". How is that for constitutionality for you? In any event - I don't hold any malice for your behavior... The God who created me - created you too.
@Amidat I have NOT infringed upon your right to hold discourse in a public forum; much as you do with your faith, you've simply handed me some power that doesn't exist, that simply CANNOT exist therefore your particular brand of happiness is not only to insist on your ignorance but also to demand that everyone else follow along.
YOu did hold malice for my behaviour; you criticized me for responding to a public posting that ANYONE can see; your sense of etiquette is rather dismal.
@SatchmoSings - you are questioning etiquette??? Proper etiquette is not too rudely infringe in a comment that was posted to someone else.. Of course in your twisted intellect you don't understand that. As I read comments below on this - I see why other people stopped bothering to respond to you. Have you ever heard the term "talking loud and not saying anything?" Actually I really don't malice you... I feel sorry for you. You must be miserable for you to behave as you do on here.
@SatchmoSings - you want to call someone an idiot..? at least use the term "internet search"... google is the name of a company. You see - I can do the same foolishness... but am not as tortured a soul as you. Thanks for caring so much.... I do now know what a Mennonite is. I think you should re-examine what the word etiquette means. You are "free" in this society to hurl unnecessary insults but you seem like a lost soul reaching out for help...but is too puffed up with pride to know.
@Amidat You're remarkably uneducated; "Google" has been accepted as a verb being synonymous with "internet search" for some years now but what else can I expect from someone that can't even "Google" the word "Mennonite" but needs a spoon-fed answer.
@SatchmoSings - no - I just proved to you that you are not as smart as you think. So if you use Yahoo or Bing or AOL is that a "google"?? NO - the proper term is internet search. You can argue all you want... Your attempt to incessant and argue shows you really have problems. I fully understand why others refuse to interact with you on this thread. I will do the same. It's precisely because I "have a life" that I won't keep wasting time going back and forth with you. I hope you get help.
@Amidat When I was a child growing up, old-timers always called the refrigerator "the Frigidaire," "Frigidaire" being a brand-name of refrigerators made and popularized by General Motors.
Any kind of cellophane tape is called "Scotch Tape" after the product inventented by the 3M Corp.
Any kind of electrostatic copying process or copier brand is referred to as a "Xerox."
So, that said, you're an idiot with no capacity for allusion.
@SatchmoSings - funny you talk about "thinking outside the box" and then you repeat all the cliche's people incorrectly use to define subjects.... Comical. Well where I grew up. A "fridge" short for refrigerator. ... tape for any kind of tape... and a "copy" for photocopy... and picture for any type of picture...even it was a polaroid. And as far as being rigid... yes I am when it comes to principles... but trust me - I probably am more well versed about the world than you could imagine.
@Amidat 02. Your overall ignorance and inability to think "outside of the box" shows precisely what is wrong, both with your being a religionist and more specifically a Christian; you have absolutely no "suppleness of mind;" you're as rigidly anal as they come.
@Amidat 02. Also, that you're too lazy and ignorant to "google" "Mennonite" shows what I claim; an ignoramus that has no use for being resourceful; you need everything spoon-fed to you.
@SatchmoSings - oh and for the record... in the culture I come from nothing was ever spoon fed to me since I was a toddler. You know nothing about me but you make comments... what is a person who forms opinions without knowing all the facts??? A fool. Don't be mad because I'm not insecure.
@Amidat I only "know" you from what you've presented here and even you must admit, it's been rather wretched at best and in reality, was all quite lame.
@SatchmoSings - we could go back and forth continuously - which is a waste of time and energy. Go enjoy yourself and your freedom. At the end of life - we will see if their is a God and whether there will be punishment for the disobedient or not. I know where I put my hope. If you think that there is nothing after the human breathe leaves the body... then I'm sure you will continue to do whatever you want to do. That is fully your decision.
@Amidat It's comments like this that further impress me as to what you are; since you personally can't punish me (as your church would have done in "The Good Old Days) you now have to sneer that "God's gonna get me."
As a Secularist and a Republicanist, I know the only sin I've committed is my refusal to believe in this alleged God.
Imagine, an all-powerful being who gets angry because he won't give me evidence for His existence; this sounds about as childish and churlish as yourself.
@SatchmoSings - well "only a fool in his heart says their heart their is no God". The fact that the Universe doesn't implode on itself is evidence that it was no "accident" of time and chance. If you feel your own sould is a chance of happen-stance well then you have a low opinion of yourself as well. You were created in the image of God... which is why I won't curse you. I just warn you. In this republic you can believe whatever you want... and so can everyone else.
@Amidat I see you're not above name calling; you just called me a fool.
Using the standards of a typical US Court of Law, God's existence cannot be proven.
You won't curse me, but you'll call me a fool.
You are correct in that in a Republic, people can believe as they wish, fortunately people cannot BEHAVE as they wish; my secular government keeps you religionists in check so you cannot act out upon your beliefs and that makes me quite proud.
@SatchmoSings - you talk about being "free"... but you are really enslaved to pride - arrogance - hatred - malice etc. Your words betray you...but you think you are "ok". Case in point. I'm not a Muslim and I disagree with them on many things.. yet I am not on here arguing with them and calling them names like you are. If anyone of them wants to have a discussion of our different religions I'm fine with it... but yet you who are so "enlightened" has nothing but insults.. hmmmm???
@Amidat The Muslims here advocate destroying the freedoms I enjoy living in this republic; they want to take away my beliefs and FORCE me to believe as they do because if I don't they will make it a point to punish me.
In response to their earnest desire to punish me for rejecting their belief system, I call them some names; big deal.
@SatchmoSings - as far as anyone forcing you to believe.. how can they do that here on YouTube. I see your comment on Iran - and I've seen many documentaries of ppl who visit there and from what I see it's only the non-religious ones who want "freedom". Just as this country has it's government - so do they (even though I don't agree with some of it). So freedom for you is only ok when they agree with you? The constitution protects my right to follow the bible as it does yours to be agnostic.
@Amidat The Constitution does NOT protect your right to follow The Bible; the Constitution protects your right to BELIEVE IN The Bible.
Indeed, it has been my own experience that people that break laws and claim, in court, that they were just following the Bible generally get maximum sentences whenever the judge has discretion in sentencing this way.
@SatchmoSings - well as far as people who break laws and claim the "bible said so" - usually are mis-interpreting what the bible says. Also - the bible actually acknowledges that believers are in "exile" and that we should be "quiet" and obedient to the laws of any land we live in - UNLESS it contradicts with God's ways. And that is exactly what I do. The bible is clear we don't have authority to oppose anything.. but our job is to "tell" and practice what is right ourselves!
@midleground , usa is not built on wearing a scarf or not wearing a scarf,,, usa was made for freedom... freedom of choice,,, so fuck u and fuck ur facist remarks.. .
@NinJaMamasita Well, I must admit that that observation is essentially "over the top."
"We're following the word of God which has been consistent throughout time."
I'm a Republicanist so to me, following rules of religion are pretty ridiculous and even ugly; Republicanism uses the standard of interfering with the freedom of another person; I obviously feel that a healthier standard of conduct and of law.
@Amidat That's where, as a Republicanist, I don't much care for The Bible.
The boundary in a Republic becomes this: Do my actions interfere with the Freedom of another person?; that becomes the standard of The Law, not The Bible.
The US Founders had the right idea; they were very civilized people, unlike the primitives that wrote the Bible.
@SatchmoSings - as far as "primitives" writing the Bible. First I believe firmly that over the hundreds of years it was written it was the inspiration of God's Spirit - which is why there is such continuity among different people. Second - you do realize that from North Africa through the Mid East into Asia was where everything was "happening" back then..??? All the advances of modern society started there - not Greece and Rome as they want to teach from a Euro-centric view.
@Amidat "ALL the advances of modern soceity started there - not Greece and Rome as they want to teach from a Euro-centric view."
When I learned basic world history in the 6th grade at I.S. 59, Mr. Arciello (and our textbook, too) made abundantly clear that places like Persia, India and China had much to do with the rise of civilization and learning so your accusation is another straw-man.
@SatchmoSings - well I'm glad you know this because it was out of these cultures and time that the bible and other religions developed... but you said earlier the bible writers were "primitive". I don't get that. Just as I don't understand why you don't call the signers of the Constituion primitive since they mention that humans were created and that there was a God. How do you reconcile that? They didn't say this should be a religious country - but they say it was "self-evident".
@SatchmoSings - you can't really be serious. who then did the founders claim created man???? and in the declaration of independence they NEVER said that religion was wrong... in fact - if you read the arguments they had against the king of England they argued he didn't live up to his responsibility before God. You can't be serious in your arguments. You are just as extreme on the secular end as some religious zealouts who get it wrong.
@Amidat I'm glad to see that you corrected yourself; you obviously had the Constitution confused with The Declaration of Independence.
By the way, where does God's Holy Writ discuss how He endows people with certain unalienable Rights and also tells men that they should live under governments that derive their just powers from the consent of the governed?
Every example that God gives us of governance is tyrannical.
@SatchmoSings - yeah - Declaration of Independence. you can read the bible - there are too many times to source it. Oh and btw the Greeks and Romans who pioneered democracy and senates had their own religions and were VERY oppressive of Jews and Christians. ALso - for anyone who was not White Anglo Saxon and Protestant... the US government for a LONG time were considered tyrannical. Check the history of the natives - the negro - the Chinese - and the Jews in America prior to the 1960's.
@Amidat 01] Sometimes I make longer comments that span more than a single posting and I number them; you too can do that and you could have listed three "chapters and verse" to make your point (I don't quite understand the point you were trying to make . . .)
Yes, the history of freedom in this country is somewhat checkered, however until the late 1810s when Great Britain changed some laws, the US was the freest nation on earth.
@Amidat 02] The trajectory of freedom in this country has steadily become all the more embracing; 350,000 men, mostly WHITE men DIED to give the Negro his freedom, and, despite discrimination, thousands of Chinese and MILLIONS of Jews (including my grandparents) came to this country because it was still the best place on earth both at the time and it still is today (despite all the damage done by almost every president after JFK).
@SatchmoSings - first thing the Civil War was about preserving the union... not so much about freeing slaves... read the comments of Lincoln and Ulysses Grant... let alone the soldiers (the Draft riots weren't the only one). And it was the "religious" white men who were concerned about freeing the negro.. and not killing off the natives... and such. Etc. and just as you point out there are "good" in American history. There are billions who find good in religion in spit of what you say!!!!
@Amidat 01. Well, I agree with everything you said in this post! Imagine that!
You must also remember that despite draft riots and the like, Lincoln thought he had lost the 1864 election, that is until the vote from the soldiers came in (and yes, there couldn't have been much a vote from the German and Irish conscripts).
@Amidat 02. Also, much abolitionist feeling in the North was also a product of Christian religious fervor that occurred during "The [Second] Great Awakening." The South, though, used Christian doctrine to MAINTAIN the institution of slavery (which is also what pretty much justified its original existence), and put "God in their Constitution" as part of this justification.
@SatchmoSings - oh and btw using your secular studies you would know that there are some countries that do rank higher in quality of life... and they all are quite secular countries. Canada - Germany - the Scandanavian countries - Japan... etc. Religions have an even quieter voice in those nations... you should give them a try - especially since all the religious ppl in America annoy you. I can also give you bad examples of agnostic or secularists leaders though...Stalin - Saddam - etc.
@SatchmoSings - it doesn't say anywhere in the bible that the governed should be given consent by the rulers.. it says all humans should obey God's ways... but that man is blinded and wants to do his own thing. You can read Psalm 2 and 53 for examples... and even Acts chapter 17:15-34 which was a speach given on Mars hill in Athens, Greece... ironic isn't it??
@Amidat Your first sentence in this post; I don't know whether you've made an error in transposing the phrase "consent of the governed" or you are making the point that the Bible says that all men should be governed by The Bible and that governed really don't have a choice this way, because the rulers are just carrying out God's law.
Either way, Republicanism must ultimately go against God because that is the product of man's blindness in his quest to do his own thing.
@Amidat 02. The men that wrote the Bible had all the knowledge of a then Choctaw Indian Chief or an Eskimo driver of dogs; they didn't know very much but they did believe a great deal and they did the best they could, which, in light of current knowledge isn't very much at all.
@SatchmoSings - NOTHING in this modern life can prove anything in the bible is false... you only have "theories"... but there is evidence every single day that what the bible says is true. Even mathematics that let's men change his environment...and all the laws of nature are orderly. Order only comes from order... not chaos. The Everlasting God is Who created Order. You can fight it all you want...but you can't escape it.
@Amidat Since you've failed to prove to me there is such a thing as God (much as Louis Pasteur proved to people that it was microbes that made people sick) your premise, your "theory" (it would be more correct to use the word "hypothesis") has no validity.
@SatchmoSings - well actually if you believed the Bible you wouldn't have to wait to find out "microbes" make ppl sick. If you look at the scientist that studied the laws of nature - many of them believed in the bible. For a scientist to even look at a microbe and not realize that even something so "primitive" has structure and order to it and didn't just "appear" shows that man - who was created in the image of God - really just wants to be his own god.
@Amidat 01) Men had known about microbes for about 200 years before Pasteur had come along; the pioneer in developing the microscope, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, had described one-celled plants and animals and also bacteria.
Yes, man wants to be his own God; after all, clergy fought small-pox vaccination and even a "whiff of ether" in childbirth; after all, the Bible says that a woman must give birth in pain.
@SatchmoSings - yes and there are many clergy who get things wrong... just as their are clergy who have nefarious purposes.... the bible warns against listening to those ppl. My point is don't try to blame religion for everything. Just as I pointed out secular and agnostic leaders who did much damage. Just as I will point out that Hitler was elected fair and square in elections. To answer your question for the final time... anything that tells man he can do whatever he wants is against God.
@Amidat 01] So, the clergy that told people not to take the small-pox vaccine; were they against God?
When Queen Victoria, who was also head of the Anglican church, asked her Christian advisors about taking a "whiff of ether" when she would give birth to her eighth child and they explicitly told her NO, were they wrong? The Queen "took [the] whiff of ether" and when this news got around, women then ignored their clergy this way.
@Amidat 02] Using your argument, God created all life, including small-pox; small-pox is here because of God's wisdom and man has no business interfering.
There is a reason that women give birth in pain; who is man to interfere with "a whiff of ether" or a spinal?
I also ask you this, what loving mother wants to see her child riddled with small pox and even if he recovers, would she accept his being blind as "God's will" especially if she knew about the vaccine?
@SatchmoSings - As I stated I'm tired of going tit for tat. Yes - disease was put here as a result of man's rebellion. As far as cures... I will say scripture points out it is God's glory to conceal things and the glory of man to seek them out (monkeys didn't "evolve" to learn about micrscopes). as far as childbirth there are many many women in the world who give birth with no "help". SOme of them are even secularists like yourself (see Ricki Lake).
@Amidat You didn't answer my point, or rather your own point about nefarious clergy for indeed, they were thought to be most correct at the time; perhaps in 150 years or so, people will reflect back upon the clergy that you have listened to and view it the same way.
The point about childbirth is irrelevant, for in a Republic, how a woman chooses to give birth is her own business; there are no more clergy roaming halls in hospitals yanking away ether canisters.
@SatchmoSings - no i'm done...because you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. If you go and re-read my comments you would see your questions were answered by my statements. "The Republic" is your god that you worship... and you refuse to understand anything that doesn't fit your view. You are the real fanatic... and as you said - you have the right to choose to be that way. However, I don't have the energy for the tit for tat. Bye for now.
Saul of tarsus is the mouth piece of Satan, a confounded of the truth with lies...Saul says man was created in God's image...but Genesis says God created BOTH man AND WOMAN in his image...all of Saul's teachings in 1 Corinthians, like all his epistles are confounding truth with lies...Saul is a false prophet (like Muhammad) and a liar, that Jesus predicted would come and to beware of. Read Jesus Words Only by Douglas J. Tondo, Esq. and the truth will be revealed.
@Amidat Genesis says that God formed man AND woman is his image...Saul lies, for he says that woman was made in man's image...he is a liar, and confounder of truth with lies, he is the mouth piece of Satan.
@Mortaryan - I'm not sure what your "angle" is but yes Adam and Eve were created in His image... but it clearly states Adam was formed out of the dirt - given mandates - and then Eve was created out of Adam (not the dirt) as his help. Don't twist scripture to fit what you want.
My angle is truth. Saul/Paul is a Satan...and if you follow the lies of Satan...Saul says a man must not cover his head because he is the image of God, and woman must cover her head and worship man because woman was created in the image of man...this is a lie, and Saul is a confounder of truth with lies, to get others to lie also. Woman is a coequal creation with man, his equal, and his partner, his help mate, MAN is NOT superior to Woman, neither is woman superior to Man...
@Mortaryan - well it seems you like to "cherry pick" verses. Go back and read Genesis... Eve was created after Adam. She sinned with the serpent in rebellion to the instructions that God gave to Adam. In addressing situation...after stating her punishment... He was clear that women desire to rule over man but that was not his order. The only thing you are right about is that neither is superior to the other.... but there is an order that is to be followed.
@Amidat No Eve was not created after Adam, read the scriptures again...Adam and Eve were FORMED at the same time. It is you whose mind is poisoned by the Roman patriarchal slave-master dialectic.
A woman's hair is her glory, the symbolic representation of the glory and grace of God, that covers the physical temple of the holy spirit.
To cover the hair is a Sin against God, and no sign of humility...it is vanity...all is vanity.
that is my angle.
The Holy Scriptures are a threshing flail to separate the grain from the chaff, the grain from which the Kingdom of Heaven will be planted, but not even all the grain will land in fertile soil and grow into the Kingdom of Heaven.
@Mortaryan - where does in say in the scripture that covering her hair is sin against God? you can't make things up to fit what you want. Our naked bodies were created as a glory to God... but then sin came in. Are you suggesting that we should walk naked....because covering our naked bodies would be an affront??
@Amidat The scriptures state self righteousness and vanity are sources of sin, human desire, public shows of faith are vanity and self righteousness, stemming from human desire for others to acknowledge superiority...A SIN...to cover the hair, as a public show of modesty is vanity, and sinful, and never instructed by G-D. Christ said, when you worship, do so in private, to avoid vanity and self righteousness...because the vain and self righteous have their reward with public acknowledgment.
@Mortaryan - you again are misrepresenting the issue. Also look in Numbers 5 of when a wife suspected of adultery went before the high priest. The high priest would uncover her head. One thing that tells you is that they they kept their heads covered... but what does it show you about the purpose of covering the head if it was "uncovered" before the Lord to face a serious accusation??
Public shows of faith are their own reward! follow the teachings of Jesus who is the witness, prophet, anointed one, and Son of the Living Deity. Do NOT follow Shaul of Tarsu (The Offense of Tarsus), who is an apostate and false prophet.
Once a women comes to faith in Jesus Christ, He then is her covering and there is no biblical reason for a scarf. Before salvation, an earthly father or authority is her covering.
LottieSue 3 weeks ago
@LottieSue it was cultural at that time in life...that is why Paul said for the woman to cover their heads in corinthians chapter 11....some legalistic christians with a lack of understanding can not discern it as the culture of the time...religion has always been oppressive to woman and it still is...our world has barely evolved beyond this!
lucy9359 1 week ago
Comment removed
spartacussarasin 4 days ago
Here in Greece (Orthodox Cristians), women used to wear veil/hijab/madila(μαντίλα) a lot. Every woman in the churche used to wear veil. Nowadays only grandmas wear it, but some yong girls start to wear veils again.
In Russia tho all women still wear veils in church.
...all the thing is to wear it becouse you want to.
dimyoll 4 weeks ago
@MrArpas123 Same goes for you then.
starfaery 2 months ago
@MrArpas123 Unless you've done this yourself. You really need to sit down and shut up.
starfaery 2 months ago
Comment removed
starfaery 2 months ago
No the bible say the covering is the woman's hair
1 Corinthians 11:13
Judge for yourselves: is it proper that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
1 Corinthians 11:14
Does not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man has long hair, it is a shame unto him?
1 Corinthians 11:15
But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
prittydeb 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If hair is womens glory. Why should it be covered? That don't eaven make sense.
starfaery 2 months ago
Comment removed
starfaery 2 months ago
Comment removed
starfaery 2 months ago
Comment removed
starfaery 2 months ago
today we see women in the beach wearing too peaces of paper and all the males are looking at her and become horny and when men are horny they become more agressive . this is why women shuld wear veils ...
01FNG 3 months ago
this is wrong
sauveur1234 4 months ago
@sauveur1234
I know greek orthodox women don't wear hijab.
brazilianbutterfly61 3 months ago
The Quran does not tell women to cover their hair. The word HIJAB is only ever used to mean partition/barrier, and never in relation to a woman's hair.
Neither God, Muhammad, Jesus or Moses taught such a law in the Scriptures.
It is only Paul in the New Testament who makes an issue of women's hair because she is the "glory of man".
Men and women of most cultures covered their head up until the sexual revolution of the 1960s, for reasons of modesty/repectability/status.
2angeline 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2angeline "The Quran does not tell women to cover their hair." True it's not their hair he wants covered up.
"Neither God, Muhammad, Jesus or Moses taught such a law in the Scriptures."
True again IF your talking about hair.
Now can you tell what is the REAL reason muslimas cover up?
I know you can do it.
sirjambo 5 months ago
in other words, 153 million in India and 200 million in Indonesia are going throw the process of Islamization started by some desert tribes.
for example the practice of female genital mutilation was spread to indonesia by muslim tribes that promote it (and it is also permits by the quran)
perrik7 5 months ago
@perrik7 lol female genital mutilation? where on earth Quran said about female genital mutilation?
even their prophet did not do FGM to his daughter,
and Indonesia allow FGM? have you been to that country?
FGM in Indonesia, is not cutting Clitoris at All, only a tiny bit of Clitoris hood, and they have been practiced it since centuries and it's their Cultural believe not Islamic law
hextai111 4 months ago
@hextai111 The bible specifically forbid FGM, i didnt saw anywhere in the quran that forbid it too.
probably allah changed his mind ;)
the origin of FGM is arabic-egyptian, it was promoted in indonesia by muslims. you should learn some basic history.
what is a "tiny bit" of clitoris? the clituris is already a "tiny bit"
perrik7 4 months ago
@perrik7 quran said, it's forbid to alter GOD creation, quran 4:119, so majority of scholar in position that the FGM as Haram,
In Indonesia there was no FGM, or mutilation that procedures are aimed at limiting or extinguishing female sexuality
but what they been practicing is "clitoridotomy" in term of Clitoral Hood Reduction , no clitoral mutilation.
many indonesian woman who been "circumcision " can still enjoy sex, since their clit still there, you can go there and ask them yourself.
hextai111 4 months ago
@hextai111 4:119 - talks about cattle’s ears
perrik7 4 months ago
@perrik7 lol it's talk about altering creation and following satan, see scholar interpertation, and FGM is not permited
and Leviticus 19:28 "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead" in response for a tradition of Self-mutilation, such as the cutting off of toes or fingers as sign of respect for the deceased, so not to Forbid FGM, Ethiopian Jews in "Why aren't Jewish women circumcised?: gender and covenant in Judaism" page 59 " said "women are excised in the Jewish manner"
hextai111 4 months ago
@hextai111
why do you alter the weet and eat pita bread? you are altering creation.
"for the dead" is an addition that exist only in some english versions of the bible, not in the hebrew torah.
you propagate islamic judaism.
perrik7 4 months ago
@perrik7 altering creation e.g FGM, that is the interpretation of surah
ow so bible had version,each must be from different perspective of different GOD and the fact is none of these version forbid FGM
islamic judaism? those Beta israelis did FGM since 2nd century BC, reported by Agatharchides
btw im out here friends, just simply providing FACT, that Majority of Muslims consensus held centuries ago said Covering Face is not required in the Islamic Law but still allowed as cultural practices
hextai111 4 months ago
@perrik7 and about FGM, Majority of Muslim banned FGM for non Medic Situation, but allowed "clitoridotomy" in term of Clitoral Hood Reduction not Removal as Cultural practices.
hextai111 4 months ago
@hextai111 how do you know about majority? do you guys count the mutilated clitorises? this is sick!
perrik7 4 months ago
@perrik7 majority muslim scholar banned FGM @ but allowed clitoridotomy at Cairo meeting , that's mean majority of muslim didn't do such practiced since they follow the Fatwa of their respected scholar ,
who count it? something like Australia's THE FAMILY LAW COUNCIL, on their Report of FGM page 10 stated "2.17 Female genital mutilation is not practiced in predominantly Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria, Pakistan and the Gulf States"
pls dont press ur propagandas
hextai111 4 months ago
@hextai111 you are just mumbling all kind of false information from islamic sited.
you never been to those countries and you dont know this people.
buttom line, you can FGM your daughters and considered a devoted Muslim.
perrik7 4 months ago
@perrik7 false? prove it, and so something like Australia's THE FAMILY LAW COUNCIL is islamic institution? and their report is fake? lol you only talk BS without basis,
bottom line, FGM is forbidden in Islamic Law
nuff said
hextai111 4 months ago
@hextai111 you have your evidence and i have mine.
FGM is spreading altough civil ban.
in most muslim countries, what you say against sharia FGM is blesphemy.
perrik7 4 months ago
@perrik7 lol another BS and what evidence?, fact sharia law ban mutilation e.g FGM since centuries ago, read islamic law in hadist "Sahih Bukhari, Oppressions, Volume 3, Book 43, Number 654" mutilation or maiming of bodies is Forbidden.
Majority of Muslims against FGM, only non-devout Tribal Muslim against these Law
see Australia "THE FAMILY LAW COUNCIL" FGM report
nuff said stop bullshiting around.
hextai111 4 months ago
@hextai111 Hadith is not a part of the 5 pillar of islam, why are you mentioning it?
your hadith is satanic to other muslims and blaming tribal cultures is very racist of you.
read this, read that, you are avoiding the main issue,
a man can be a devoted muslim even if he genital mutilate his daughters.
millions of other muslims will kill you for this islamiic right.
perrik7 4 months ago
@perrik7 huh?stop BS around, your making fun of yourself lol
hadith are regarded by traditional Islamic schools of jurisprudence as important tools for understanding the Qur'an and in matters of jurisprudence.
Fatwa : Islamic law issued by an Islamic scholar based on Quran and Hadith
FGM Fatwa: FGM is prohibited since Quran said Prohibition of Altering Creation such as mutilation explenation in hadith
so how can a man become devout muslim if he against all thing above?
devine "devote" pls
hextai111 4 months ago
@hextai111 you are not making any sense.
if altering is prohibited, why do you circumcise man?
you hadith is your hadith, but you must understand that there are other hadiths and every
muslim think that his hadith is the most common and authentic.
anyway hadith have nothing to do with the 5 pillar of Islam and a muslim is not commited to a spesific hadith.
perrik7 4 months ago
@perrik7 5 pillars of islam
shaadah, professing monotheism and accepting Muhammad as God's messenger, Quran stated "obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you" (4: 59)
obey the messenger is following hadith
hadith may vary, but hadith about circumcision not , so Altering God Creation is forbidden , FGM is forbidden, but men Circumcision, cutting hair allowed
2nd pillars of islam is Shalat, and how muslims pray? it's detailed in hadith
so stop BS around
hextai111 4 months ago
@hextai111 i'm totaly confused.
Isnt it contradicting when God command not to have any split is Islam, but gives variation of hadith?
can you explain?
perrik7 4 months ago
@perrik7 God command ,Quran doesn't have version, but it's true hadith makes muslims branches since those charged with authority (4: 59) sometimes interpret Quran with hadith differently . All these branches are different in their religious practice but sometimes produce common Law or Fatwa, it called Ijma or consensus, but as long as the Shaadah is same, then he/she is a Muslims. So basically no branches in basic faith, but division about minor religious practice e.g Taraweeh in Ramadan.
hextai111 4 months ago
@hextai111 So, FGM is a minor religion practice!
i see... just take a look at what wrong path of islam is doing to you.
you are very confused man and every thing you say is in contradiction with what you said before.
you must search for the truth, because you are lost.
perrik7 4 months ago
@perrik7 lol , FGM again which is considered haram not minor religiuos practice? see australia Report pls? ur just BS around
contradiction? which one? show me? lol educate yourself and learn how to read first pls
hextai111 4 months ago
@hextai111 what does australia knows about islam?
Not to FGM your daughters is haram.
you maybe understand something about your sect of islam, but you know nothing about the majority of muslims and the 5 pillars.
perrik7 4 months ago
@perrik7 Another BS
Fact :
1. Ijma or Conceccus of all muslims stated FGM is haram wih Quran and Hadith basis.
2. Australia THE FAMILY LAW COUNCIL investigate FGM practice stated in their report : "Female genital mutilation is not practiced in predominantly Islamic countries".
3. In US Clitoral Unhooding, Labiaplasty ,Vaginoplasty still Legal and considered Plastic Surgery.
nuff said
hextai111 4 months ago
@perrik7 so me where bible specificaly forbid FGM? in Kenya those Christian did FGM for ages, and also Ethiopian Jews because There is no where in the Bible that FGM is talked. and their history of doing FGM is much more Older within the region
hextai111 4 months ago
@hextai111 Ethiopian Jews are not practicing this anymore, it only happen in the past when they had Muslim dad. christians have many intepertations to the bible and some permits it.
The bible mention many times that you must not make a cutting in the flesh (for example Leviticus 19:28).
perrik7 4 months ago
Greeks and Romans of both sexes went bare-headed.
Also, there is a famous color photograph of the Coney Island seaside taken about 1910; EVERY PERSON of both sexes is wearing a hat!
SatchmoSings 5 months ago
Don't forget Hindus and saris...but throughout time God in other parts of the world does not require a veil.
officialmer 6 months ago
maybe some women wear the burqa because they are ugly...
MrSpemat 6 months ago
Comment removed
perrik7 6 months ago
Muslim lies all the time.
here is what the bible have to say about burqa:
Genesis 38:15 When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face.
perrik7 6 months ago
@perrik7
Muslim lies? is that why your book the bible sounds like a joke compared to the Quran?
IMnotSAS 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IMnotSAS the bible was planned to look as a joke if a stupid man will read it.
the quran is a man made
perrik7 6 months ago
@perrik7 - ummm she covered her "face" so that he wouldn't know who she was... that has nothing to do with hair coverings... The hair being covered as is spoken of in Numbers 5 is what is being spoken about.
Amidat 6 months ago
@Amidat you are confirming what i said. prostitute used to cover their face so client will not recognize them..
hair cover is not a face cover and muslims cover their faces
perrik7 6 months ago
@perrik7 - i'm not a muslim but I have some living around me... none of them cover their face... only the hair. i've only seen a handful in person doing that... though I believe its a law in Saudi Arabia... not most places. so does that make you a liar? my point is stop calling people names pointlessly.
Amidat 6 months ago
@Amidat in the begining there was only few women covering their faces in saudi arabia.
just like the few you see around you today, but this is off topic.
i only say that
IN CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM ONLY PROSTITUTE COVER THEIR FACES.
perrik7 6 months ago
@perrik7 - so if you acknowledge there are only a few... then why do you keep bringing it up??? this video has nothing to do with that....
Amidat 6 months ago
@Amidat you are the one that bring the few muslims around you.
i just told you that in saudi arabia, it also started with only a few.
i only say that
IN CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM ONLY PROSTITUTE COVER THEIR FACES.
perrik7 6 months ago
@perrik7 you dont know Burqa is not part of islamic law, its traditional law, burqa is for Taliban sect followers only, and Veil with Niqab is only traditonal Law of Wahabi sect , Islamic law in quran only said about Covering your head not your face , how can they lies? when even bible said similar stuff
hextai111 5 months ago
@hextai111 you dont understand islam my dear.
traditional laws are very well protected by islam and islam permits the face cover for all women.
the torah except this only for a prostitute.
perrik7 5 months ago
@perrik7 permitted but not necessary, and not part of islamic law, face cover thats some tribes traditional law, only tiny minority of Muslim wearing burqa and niqab, the biggest muslim community in this world like india 153 million muslims or Indonesia 200 million muslims, dont require face covering at all only head Cover like Veil, it seems it is you who dont understand islamic law at all yet accusing all muslim women should wear face cover
hextai111 5 months ago
@hextai111 ok mr know it all quote me where it says to cover the head only?
burqa is for taliban followers only is that y devout muslim women in all countries of the world wear it?
didnt know the taliban ran the uk or morroco?
ukzane 4 months ago
@ukzane how many muslim women in UK or Morroco wear Burqa? and How many Afganistani women Wear Burqa? thats the fact, Veil is not the same like Burqa , so pls educate your self before talkin
Devout muslim women wear Hijab, what is Hijab? it is something to guard their modesty Quran 24:31
it can be Veil, Abaya, Veil+niqab, Burqa, or a loose non tight clothing
the type of Hijab r vary from Sect to sect . Taliban wear Burqa, Wahabis wear Veil+niqab , but majority of Muslim only wear Veil
hextai111 4 months ago
This lady needs to get her facts right, greek orthodox women only covered their hair in church, over fifty years ago, not now
brazilianbutterfly61 6 months ago
The only veil that the bible tells us women to have is the hair on our heads
1 corinthians 11
prittydeb 7 months ago
If hair was not sensual - so much money would not be spent on advertisements for hair products AND the ads are certainly sensual.
elishebabb 7 months ago
@elishebabb That's a good point however sex is used to sell many other products, too; automobiles are also a good example.
SatchmoSings 7 months ago
@SatchmoSings Sex means gender. We have changed the word sexual intercourse to " sex ". We also have separated the activity of sexual intercourse from love between spouses. Now instead of an act of creation - it is frequently an act of destruction...STDs, abortions, rejection of the partner when someone new comes along, etc. Separating sex from marriage is like separating bran,starch,& germ from the whole grain of wheat...people make money & power from it but the health & balance is gone.
elishebabb 7 months ago
@elishebabb The word "sex" can be both a noun (as it is in defining gender) or a verb (to have sexual intercourse).
Sexual acts can be destructive; that is a given and so can driving a car; speeding, running lights and road rage.
We need food for nourishment and communal eating is also an affirming social act. At the same time we can have obesity along with bulimia.
SatchmoSings 7 months ago
@SatchmoSings Unfortunately slang has entered modern dictionaries. Sexual acts in a commandment obedient marriage is not harmful.Driving a car in a law abiding way ( by you & the other person ) is not harmful. Again, eating while ignoring the commandments is harmful.
elishebabb 7 months ago
@elishebabb I have a question for you.
Is using diet sweeteners a sin? This permits people to eat MORE food without gaining weight or becoming diabetics.
SatchmoSings 7 months ago
@SatchmoSings They are harmful & there is no nutrition in them & the person becomes diabetic anyway.
elishebabb 7 months ago
@midleground You are rather wrong in your claim of people in Iran/Pakistan/Afghanistan wanting freedom; only in Iran do people really want freedom; the other two countries, most of the people there are AGAINST freedom.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
Even through the 1950s, people of both sexes generally wore hats when they were out-of-doors; you weren't considered properly dressed without a hat.
Meanwhile, the Greeks and Romans went about bare-headed.
SatchmoSings 9 months ago
The vast majority of Christian women who wear veils only do so when going to Church not in everyday life. She fails to point that out.
macnos 9 months ago
imma male n i wear it cuz i have beautiful hair.. i am a jewish christian muslim .. and i believe a mans hair is sacred .. he needs to shave his ass hair n give it to his grandpa when hes reaches the age of erection.. then he must suck his grandpa off for noah.. and jesus.. n moses.. n mohammad... they like this..
nippletease 9 months ago
2 no reality of islam plz go 2 yusuf estes.com peace
TheAngelofliberty 9 months ago
ye but the woman should have the choice to wear it or not, and not be forced to do it, then they are being oppressed. And gd said cover your hair right, not the rest of your face too...
CinRandom 9 months ago
@CinRandom if woman covers their body they would be less cases of victims of rape.. by wearing hijab woman can hide their assets.. who like to showoff their body.. slut maybe.
TIKUSHUTAN91 9 months ago
@TIKUSHUTAN91 well women should not have to be covered up just not to be raped, men should have more self control. And if a man wants to rape someone he probably has his mind set on it no matter what shes wearing he knows what he wants. and just because people dont wear the veil, or cover up from head to toe does not mean they are sluts...
CinRandom 9 months ago
@CinRandom what ? oh no wonder you're like that
TIKUSHUTAN91 9 months ago
@TIKUSHUTAN91 ?????like what a normal person
CinRandom 9 months ago
@CinRandom you're an alien right..dont worry.my lips are seal
TIKUSHUTAN91 9 months ago
@TIKUSHUTAN91 what, how does that have anything to do with what we are talking about. and if its supposed to be a joke, its not really funny...
CinRandom 9 months ago
@CinRandom lor. u got no sense of humour..ah. dont worry b happy ;)
TIKUSHUTAN91 9 months ago
@TIKUSHUTAN91 Yes, everytime I see a good-looking woman it's her fault if I rape her; if I see a nice car and take it, it's the fault of the owner for buying such a nice car that I'd want it.
If I pass a cafe and I see someone eating something very nice, special and delicious-looking and I grab it, it's their fault for having ordered such a thing within the bounds of my senses; nothing is every my own fault!
SatchmoSings 9 months ago
@SatchmoSings what a dumb2 you are. it lies in your own hand to make the decision. its seems that you're missing the point.. okay bye.i'm just wasting my time talking to you. you are being defensive .:P
go away
TIKUSHUTAN91 9 months ago
@midleground what are you talking about?
im an afghan, and there is no protest among the female afghans in afghanistan about removing the hijab. its not just part of our religion but also part of our culture.
Next time dont talk, bullshit, on behalf of others!
Zobaire90 10 months ago
I am a Christian, and have always believed and practiced the headcovering. I love the idea of women having the right to be modest. Hollywood has pretended to free women, but it has enslaved them to working like men, high divorce rates, and fashions that make them look like harlots. In my Mennonite culture, women are free indeed! We are free to devote our feminine gifts to the nurture of those we love. We are truly happy living within our God-given role. And our families are stable.
daffodyllady 10 months ago
@daffodyllady The man-given law of Republicanism is better; that's why over half of all people in medical schools are now women; Republicanism declares if someone has the ability to accomplish something, no arbitrary boundaries must stand in the way.
SatchmoSings 9 months ago
@SatchmoSings - I am a bible-believer and I know that most of what you are saying. I have read the founding documents and many of the writings of the "founders". Many of them were not "conservative Christians" as is purported today. Many had a very loose interpretation of God - and they wanted everyone to be free to choose. I know that a government "for they people, by the people" is much more Greco/Roman than biblical. So I get it. I will defend the bible at all times though!!
Amidat 8 months ago
@daffodyllady - I agree with you wholeheartedly dear sister. Preach to them. When a woman is free to practice her feminity to your family - the society is better off - because families are more stable. God knew what He was doing!! Now everything is off-balance in the name of "commerce". They've confused women to think that "doing everything a man can do" is freedom... when it's really a by-product of the thirst for more, more, more economic growth. Btw - what is a Mennonite?
Amidat 8 months ago
@Amidat Too bad you don't have the internet where you can look up the word "Mennonite;" you sure had me fooled, this way! Indeed, that's just what I would have done, rather than ask the poster.
Obviously, God DIDN'T know what he was doing because everywhere that people live or have lived under "God's Word" everything was tyrannical.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
Comment removed
Amidat 8 months ago
@SatchmoSings - and btw - those that don't live by God's Word are slaves to sin... and one day they will realize it... but it will be too late unless they repent. In any event - you have the "freedom" to do whatever you want to do. In the United States if you break the law - you will have to suffer the consequences. Well likewise - those who are on the wrong side of God's law will have to pay. People love sin... and so they don't like to be told they are wrong.
Amidat 8 months ago
@Amidat So you point out, as many Christians have to me at various times that "those that don't live by God's Word are slaves to sin;" it's often put to me this way, "If you're not working FOR God, you're doing the work of Satan."
In exchange may I say that if you're not working to affirm the values of the US Constitution and Republicanism, you're obviously at work doing your best to destroy them.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@SatchmoSings - my question to her has nothing to do with you... so why did you choose to answer? If I don't feel like looking it up... isn't that my "right" in a Republic???? I didn't need to pretend I didn't know... I'm not that insecure!!
Amidat 8 months ago
@Amidat Look, genius (you obviously get your intelligence and talent from this alleged God of yours; you definitely seem to have his level of intelligence) if you want to put your innermost remarks and thoughts up in a public place where literally BILLIONS of people can see them, you'd better be prepared for a response. If not, make your remarks in private, you boorish, ignorant dolt.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@SatchmoSings - someone like you has the nerve to call someone "boorish" and "ignorant"??? YOur behavior in this forum only shows have much those descriptions fit you. Of course your too blind to see that. In any event.. you are infringing on my rights to have a one on one discourse in a public forum... you are impeding my "pursuit of happiness". How is that for constitutionality for you? In any event - I don't hold any malice for your behavior... The God who created me - created you too.
Amidat 8 months ago
@Amidat I have NOT infringed upon your right to hold discourse in a public forum; much as you do with your faith, you've simply handed me some power that doesn't exist, that simply CANNOT exist therefore your particular brand of happiness is not only to insist on your ignorance but also to demand that everyone else follow along.
YOu did hold malice for my behaviour; you criticized me for responding to a public posting that ANYONE can see; your sense of etiquette is rather dismal.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@SatchmoSings - you are questioning etiquette??? Proper etiquette is not too rudely infringe in a comment that was posted to someone else.. Of course in your twisted intellect you don't understand that. As I read comments below on this - I see why other people stopped bothering to respond to you. Have you ever heard the term "talking loud and not saying anything?" Actually I really don't malice you... I feel sorry for you. You must be miserable for you to behave as you do on here.
Amidat 8 months ago
@Amidat If you wish a comment to be made personally and privately to another poster THAN MAKE THAT COMMENT A PRIVATE MESSAGE.
When you put up a message that BILLIONS of people can see, that means all of us have a right to respond to it.
That you can't comprehend this shows you're a total clod.
You're also ridiculous for not being able to "google" "Mennonite" on your own; that's simply more of your idiocy.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@SatchmoSings - you want to call someone an idiot..? at least use the term "internet search"... google is the name of a company. You see - I can do the same foolishness... but am not as tortured a soul as you. Thanks for caring so much.... I do now know what a Mennonite is. I think you should re-examine what the word etiquette means. You are "free" in this society to hurl unnecessary insults but you seem like a lost soul reaching out for help...but is too puffed up with pride to know.
Amidat 8 months ago
@Amidat You're remarkably uneducated; "Google" has been accepted as a verb being synonymous with "internet search" for some years now but what else can I expect from someone that can't even "Google" the word "Mennonite" but needs a spoon-fed answer.
You're a real loser; get a life.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@SatchmoSings - no - I just proved to you that you are not as smart as you think. So if you use Yahoo or Bing or AOL is that a "google"?? NO - the proper term is internet search. You can argue all you want... Your attempt to incessant and argue shows you really have problems. I fully understand why others refuse to interact with you on this thread. I will do the same. It's precisely because I "have a life" that I won't keep wasting time going back and forth with you. I hope you get help.
Amidat 8 months ago
@Amidat When I was a child growing up, old-timers always called the refrigerator "the Frigidaire," "Frigidaire" being a brand-name of refrigerators made and popularized by General Motors.
Any kind of cellophane tape is called "Scotch Tape" after the product inventented by the 3M Corp.
Any kind of electrostatic copying process or copier brand is referred to as a "Xerox."
So, that said, you're an idiot with no capacity for allusion.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@SatchmoSings - funny you talk about "thinking outside the box" and then you repeat all the cliche's people incorrectly use to define subjects.... Comical. Well where I grew up. A "fridge" short for refrigerator. ... tape for any kind of tape... and a "copy" for photocopy... and picture for any type of picture...even it was a polaroid. And as far as being rigid... yes I am when it comes to principles... but trust me - I probably am more well versed about the world than you could imagine.
Amidat 8 months ago
Comment removed
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@Amidat 02. Your overall ignorance and inability to think "outside of the box" shows precisely what is wrong, both with your being a religionist and more specifically a Christian; you have absolutely no "suppleness of mind;" you're as rigidly anal as they come.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@Amidat 02. Also, that you're too lazy and ignorant to "google" "Mennonite" shows what I claim; an ignoramus that has no use for being resourceful; you need everything spoon-fed to you.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@SatchmoSings - oh and for the record... in the culture I come from nothing was ever spoon fed to me since I was a toddler. You know nothing about me but you make comments... what is a person who forms opinions without knowing all the facts??? A fool. Don't be mad because I'm not insecure.
Amidat 8 months ago
@Amidat I only "know" you from what you've presented here and even you must admit, it's been rather wretched at best and in reality, was all quite lame.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@SatchmoSings - we could go back and forth continuously - which is a waste of time and energy. Go enjoy yourself and your freedom. At the end of life - we will see if their is a God and whether there will be punishment for the disobedient or not. I know where I put my hope. If you think that there is nothing after the human breathe leaves the body... then I'm sure you will continue to do whatever you want to do. That is fully your decision.
Amidat 8 months ago
@Amidat It's comments like this that further impress me as to what you are; since you personally can't punish me (as your church would have done in "The Good Old Days) you now have to sneer that "God's gonna get me."
As a Secularist and a Republicanist, I know the only sin I've committed is my refusal to believe in this alleged God.
Imagine, an all-powerful being who gets angry because he won't give me evidence for His existence; this sounds about as childish and churlish as yourself.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@SatchmoSings - well "only a fool in his heart says their heart their is no God". The fact that the Universe doesn't implode on itself is evidence that it was no "accident" of time and chance. If you feel your own sould is a chance of happen-stance well then you have a low opinion of yourself as well. You were created in the image of God... which is why I won't curse you. I just warn you. In this republic you can believe whatever you want... and so can everyone else.
Amidat 8 months ago
@Amidat I see you're not above name calling; you just called me a fool.
Using the standards of a typical US Court of Law, God's existence cannot be proven.
You won't curse me, but you'll call me a fool.
You are correct in that in a Republic, people can believe as they wish, fortunately people cannot BEHAVE as they wish; my secular government keeps you religionists in check so you cannot act out upon your beliefs and that makes me quite proud.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@SatchmoSings - you talk about being "free"... but you are really enslaved to pride - arrogance - hatred - malice etc. Your words betray you...but you think you are "ok". Case in point. I'm not a Muslim and I disagree with them on many things.. yet I am not on here arguing with them and calling them names like you are. If anyone of them wants to have a discussion of our different religions I'm fine with it... but yet you who are so "enlightened" has nothing but insults.. hmmmm???
Amidat 8 months ago
@Amidat The Muslims here advocate destroying the freedoms I enjoy living in this republic; they want to take away my beliefs and FORCE me to believe as they do because if I don't they will make it a point to punish me.
In response to their earnest desire to punish me for rejecting their belief system, I call them some names; big deal.
Here's a man that makes some sense:
watch?v=_Hf2wcCoWCM&feature=channel_video_title
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@SatchmoSings - as far as anyone forcing you to believe.. how can they do that here on YouTube. I see your comment on Iran - and I've seen many documentaries of ppl who visit there and from what I see it's only the non-religious ones who want "freedom". Just as this country has it's government - so do they (even though I don't agree with some of it). So freedom for you is only ok when they agree with you? The constitution protects my right to follow the bible as it does yours to be agnostic.
Amidat 8 months ago
@Amidat The Constitution does NOT protect your right to follow The Bible; the Constitution protects your right to BELIEVE IN The Bible.
Indeed, it has been my own experience that people that break laws and claim, in court, that they were just following the Bible generally get maximum sentences whenever the judge has discretion in sentencing this way.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@SatchmoSings - well as far as people who break laws and claim the "bible said so" - usually are mis-interpreting what the bible says. Also - the bible actually acknowledges that believers are in "exile" and that we should be "quiet" and obedient to the laws of any land we live in - UNLESS it contradicts with God's ways. And that is exactly what I do. The bible is clear we don't have authority to oppose anything.. but our job is to "tell" and practice what is right ourselves!
Amidat 8 months ago
@midleground , usa is not built on wearing a scarf or not wearing a scarf,,, usa was made for freedom... freedom of choice,,, so fuck u and fuck ur facist remarks.. .
UNJUSTIFICATION1 10 months ago
shes cool
NinJaMamasita 11 months ago
@NinJaMamasita She's an uptight idiot who can't think for herself.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@SatchmoSings lol what are your reasons for thinking shes "an uptight idiot who cant think for herself"?
NinJaMamasita 8 months ago
@NinJaMamasita Well, I must admit that that observation is essentially "over the top."
"We're following the word of God which has been consistent throughout time."
I'm a Republicanist so to me, following rules of religion are pretty ridiculous and even ugly; Republicanism uses the standard of interfering with the freedom of another person; I obviously feel that a healthier standard of conduct and of law.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
Those who cover the glory of The Most High Almighty sin the greatest sin, and shall find no mercy before The Most High Almighty.
Acts of Modesty as a banner of Modesty is pride...pride is the sin of self righteousness.
You shall be humble before the L-RD.
Covering the glory of The Most High, is not modesty it is ignorant and arrogant self righteous pride.
Covering the Hair is a sin.
Mortaryan 11 months ago
@Mortaryan - 1 Corinthians 11 - says the exact opposite.. some glory of God's creation is not for everyone to enjoy. There are boundaries.
Amidat 8 months ago
@Amidat That's where, as a Republicanist, I don't much care for The Bible.
The boundary in a Republic becomes this: Do my actions interfere with the Freedom of another person?; that becomes the standard of The Law, not The Bible.
The US Founders had the right idea; they were very civilized people, unlike the primitives that wrote the Bible.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@SatchmoSings - as far as "primitives" writing the Bible. First I believe firmly that over the hundreds of years it was written it was the inspiration of God's Spirit - which is why there is such continuity among different people. Second - you do realize that from North Africa through the Mid East into Asia was where everything was "happening" back then..??? All the advances of modern society started there - not Greece and Rome as they want to teach from a Euro-centric view.
Amidat 8 months ago
@Amidat "ALL the advances of modern soceity started there - not Greece and Rome as they want to teach from a Euro-centric view."
When I learned basic world history in the 6th grade at I.S. 59, Mr. Arciello (and our textbook, too) made abundantly clear that places like Persia, India and China had much to do with the rise of civilization and learning so your accusation is another straw-man.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@SatchmoSings - well I'm glad you know this because it was out of these cultures and time that the bible and other religions developed... but you said earlier the bible writers were "primitive". I don't get that. Just as I don't understand why you don't call the signers of the Constituion primitive since they mention that humans were created and that there was a God. How do you reconcile that? They didn't say this should be a religious country - but they say it was "self-evident".
Amidat 8 months ago
@Amidat There is no mention of God in the US Constitution; NONE. (Well, at the end there is, regarding the date; "In the year of our Lord.")
The US Founders were very far-sighted men; they threw out the idea of governance originating from God and made man supreme.
They even put into The Constitution that no one ever had to swear before God; affirming before the law was good enough.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@SatchmoSings - you can't really be serious. who then did the founders claim created man???? and in the declaration of independence they NEVER said that religion was wrong... in fact - if you read the arguments they had against the king of England they argued he didn't live up to his responsibility before God. You can't be serious in your arguments. You are just as extreme on the secular end as some religious zealouts who get it wrong.
Amidat 8 months ago
@Amidat I'm glad to see that you corrected yourself; you obviously had the Constitution confused with The Declaration of Independence.
By the way, where does God's Holy Writ discuss how He endows people with certain unalienable Rights and also tells men that they should live under governments that derive their just powers from the consent of the governed?
Every example that God gives us of governance is tyrannical.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@SatchmoSings - yeah - Declaration of Independence. you can read the bible - there are too many times to source it. Oh and btw the Greeks and Romans who pioneered democracy and senates had their own religions and were VERY oppressive of Jews and Christians. ALso - for anyone who was not White Anglo Saxon and Protestant... the US government for a LONG time were considered tyrannical. Check the history of the natives - the negro - the Chinese - and the Jews in America prior to the 1960's.
Amidat 8 months ago
@Amidat 01] Sometimes I make longer comments that span more than a single posting and I number them; you too can do that and you could have listed three "chapters and verse" to make your point (I don't quite understand the point you were trying to make . . .)
Yes, the history of freedom in this country is somewhat checkered, however until the late 1810s when Great Britain changed some laws, the US was the freest nation on earth.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@Amidat 02] The trajectory of freedom in this country has steadily become all the more embracing; 350,000 men, mostly WHITE men DIED to give the Negro his freedom, and, despite discrimination, thousands of Chinese and MILLIONS of Jews (including my grandparents) came to this country because it was still the best place on earth both at the time and it still is today (despite all the damage done by almost every president after JFK).
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@SatchmoSings - first thing the Civil War was about preserving the union... not so much about freeing slaves... read the comments of Lincoln and Ulysses Grant... let alone the soldiers (the Draft riots weren't the only one). And it was the "religious" white men who were concerned about freeing the negro.. and not killing off the natives... and such. Etc. and just as you point out there are "good" in American history. There are billions who find good in religion in spit of what you say!!!!
Amidat 8 months ago
@Amidat 01. Well, I agree with everything you said in this post! Imagine that!
You must also remember that despite draft riots and the like, Lincoln thought he had lost the 1864 election, that is until the vote from the soldiers came in (and yes, there couldn't have been much a vote from the German and Irish conscripts).
The soldiers overwhelmingly voted for Lincoln.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@Amidat 02. Also, much abolitionist feeling in the North was also a product of Christian religious fervor that occurred during "The [Second] Great Awakening." The South, though, used Christian doctrine to MAINTAIN the institution of slavery (which is also what pretty much justified its original existence), and put "God in their Constitution" as part of this justification.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@SatchmoSings - oh and btw using your secular studies you would know that there are some countries that do rank higher in quality of life... and they all are quite secular countries. Canada - Germany - the Scandanavian countries - Japan... etc. Religions have an even quieter voice in those nations... you should give them a try - especially since all the religious ppl in America annoy you. I can also give you bad examples of agnostic or secularists leaders though...Stalin - Saddam - etc.
Amidat 8 months ago
@SatchmoSings - it doesn't say anywhere in the bible that the governed should be given consent by the rulers.. it says all humans should obey God's ways... but that man is blinded and wants to do his own thing. You can read Psalm 2 and 53 for examples... and even Acts chapter 17:15-34 which was a speach given on Mars hill in Athens, Greece... ironic isn't it??
Amidat 8 months ago
@Amidat Your first sentence in this post; I don't know whether you've made an error in transposing the phrase "consent of the governed" or you are making the point that the Bible says that all men should be governed by The Bible and that governed really don't have a choice this way, because the rulers are just carrying out God's law.
Either way, Republicanism must ultimately go against God because that is the product of man's blindness in his quest to do his own thing.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@Amidat 02. The men that wrote the Bible had all the knowledge of a then Choctaw Indian Chief or an Eskimo driver of dogs; they didn't know very much but they did believe a great deal and they did the best they could, which, in light of current knowledge isn't very much at all.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@SatchmoSings - NOTHING in this modern life can prove anything in the bible is false... you only have "theories"... but there is evidence every single day that what the bible says is true. Even mathematics that let's men change his environment...and all the laws of nature are orderly. Order only comes from order... not chaos. The Everlasting God is Who created Order. You can fight it all you want...but you can't escape it.
Amidat 8 months ago
@Amidat Since you've failed to prove to me there is such a thing as God (much as Louis Pasteur proved to people that it was microbes that made people sick) your premise, your "theory" (it would be more correct to use the word "hypothesis") has no validity.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@SatchmoSings - well actually if you believed the Bible you wouldn't have to wait to find out "microbes" make ppl sick. If you look at the scientist that studied the laws of nature - many of them believed in the bible. For a scientist to even look at a microbe and not realize that even something so "primitive" has structure and order to it and didn't just "appear" shows that man - who was created in the image of God - really just wants to be his own god.
Amidat 8 months ago
@Amidat 01) Men had known about microbes for about 200 years before Pasteur had come along; the pioneer in developing the microscope, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, had described one-celled plants and animals and also bacteria.
Yes, man wants to be his own God; after all, clergy fought small-pox vaccination and even a "whiff of ether" in childbirth; after all, the Bible says that a woman must give birth in pain.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@SatchmoSings - yes and there are many clergy who get things wrong... just as their are clergy who have nefarious purposes.... the bible warns against listening to those ppl. My point is don't try to blame religion for everything. Just as I pointed out secular and agnostic leaders who did much damage. Just as I will point out that Hitler was elected fair and square in elections. To answer your question for the final time... anything that tells man he can do whatever he wants is against God.
Amidat 8 months ago
@Amidat 01] So, the clergy that told people not to take the small-pox vaccine; were they against God?
When Queen Victoria, who was also head of the Anglican church, asked her Christian advisors about taking a "whiff of ether" when she would give birth to her eighth child and they explicitly told her NO, were they wrong? The Queen "took [the] whiff of ether" and when this news got around, women then ignored their clergy this way.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@Amidat 02] Using your argument, God created all life, including small-pox; small-pox is here because of God's wisdom and man has no business interfering.
There is a reason that women give birth in pain; who is man to interfere with "a whiff of ether" or a spinal?
I also ask you this, what loving mother wants to see her child riddled with small pox and even if he recovers, would she accept his being blind as "God's will" especially if she knew about the vaccine?
I don't understand you.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@SatchmoSings - As I stated I'm tired of going tit for tat. Yes - disease was put here as a result of man's rebellion. As far as cures... I will say scripture points out it is God's glory to conceal things and the glory of man to seek them out (monkeys didn't "evolve" to learn about micrscopes). as far as childbirth there are many many women in the world who give birth with no "help". SOme of them are even secularists like yourself (see Ricki Lake).
Amidat 8 months ago
@Amidat You didn't answer my point, or rather your own point about nefarious clergy for indeed, they were thought to be most correct at the time; perhaps in 150 years or so, people will reflect back upon the clergy that you have listened to and view it the same way.
The point about childbirth is irrelevant, for in a Republic, how a woman chooses to give birth is her own business; there are no more clergy roaming halls in hospitals yanking away ether canisters.
SatchmoSings 8 months ago
@SatchmoSings - no i'm done...because you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. If you go and re-read my comments you would see your questions were answered by my statements. "The Republic" is your god that you worship... and you refuse to understand anything that doesn't fit your view. You are the real fanatic... and as you said - you have the right to choose to be that way. However, I don't have the energy for the tit for tat. Bye for now.
Amidat 8 months ago
Saul of tarsus is the mouth piece of Satan, a confounded of the truth with lies...Saul says man was created in God's image...but Genesis says God created BOTH man AND WOMAN in his image...all of Saul's teachings in 1 Corinthians, like all his epistles are confounding truth with lies...Saul is a false prophet (like Muhammad) and a liar, that Jesus predicted would come and to beware of. Read Jesus Words Only by Douglas J. Tondo, Esq. and the truth will be revealed.
Mortaryan 8 months ago
@Mortaryan - Genesis says that Adam was created out of the dirt... and then Eve was later created out of Adam's rib... where is the contradiction?
Amidat 7 months ago
@Amidat Genesis says that God formed man AND woman is his image...Saul lies, for he says that woman was made in man's image...he is a liar, and confounder of truth with lies, he is the mouth piece of Satan.
Mortaryan 7 months ago
@Mortaryan - I'm not sure what your "angle" is but yes Adam and Eve were created in His image... but it clearly states Adam was formed out of the dirt - given mandates - and then Eve was created out of Adam (not the dirt) as his help. Don't twist scripture to fit what you want.
Amidat 7 months ago
My angle is truth. Saul/Paul is a Satan...and if you follow the lies of Satan...Saul says a man must not cover his head because he is the image of God, and woman must cover her head and worship man because woman was created in the image of man...this is a lie, and Saul is a confounder of truth with lies, to get others to lie also. Woman is a coequal creation with man, his equal, and his partner, his help mate, MAN is NOT superior to Woman, neither is woman superior to Man...
Mortaryan 7 months ago
@Mortaryan - well it seems you like to "cherry pick" verses. Go back and read Genesis... Eve was created after Adam. She sinned with the serpent in rebellion to the instructions that God gave to Adam. In addressing situation...after stating her punishment... He was clear that women desire to rule over man but that was not his order. The only thing you are right about is that neither is superior to the other.... but there is an order that is to be followed.
Amidat 7 months ago
@Amidat No Eve was not created after Adam, read the scriptures again...Adam and Eve were FORMED at the same time. It is you whose mind is poisoned by the Roman patriarchal slave-master dialectic.
Mortaryan 6 months ago
@Mortaryan - if you believe adam and eve were formed at the same time - i suggest you get a new bible. no accepted version of Genesis says that.
Amidat 6 months ago
A woman's hair is her glory, the symbolic representation of the glory and grace of God, that covers the physical temple of the holy spirit.
To cover the hair is a Sin against God, and no sign of humility...it is vanity...all is vanity.
that is my angle.
The Holy Scriptures are a threshing flail to separate the grain from the chaff, the grain from which the Kingdom of Heaven will be planted, but not even all the grain will land in fertile soil and grow into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Mortaryan 7 months ago
@Mortaryan - where does in say in the scripture that covering her hair is sin against God? you can't make things up to fit what you want. Our naked bodies were created as a glory to God... but then sin came in. Are you suggesting that we should walk naked....because covering our naked bodies would be an affront??
Amidat 7 months ago
@Amidat The scriptures state self righteousness and vanity are sources of sin, human desire, public shows of faith are vanity and self righteousness, stemming from human desire for others to acknowledge superiority...A SIN...to cover the hair, as a public show of modesty is vanity, and sinful, and never instructed by G-D. Christ said, when you worship, do so in private, to avoid vanity and self righteousness...because the vain and self righteous have their reward with public acknowledgment.
Mortaryan 6 months ago
@Mortaryan - you again are misrepresenting the issue. Also look in Numbers 5 of when a wife suspected of adultery went before the high priest. The high priest would uncover her head. One thing that tells you is that they they kept their heads covered... but what does it show you about the purpose of covering the head if it was "uncovered" before the Lord to face a serious accusation??
Amidat 6 months ago
Public shows of faith are their own reward! follow the teachings of Jesus who is the witness, prophet, anointed one, and Son of the Living Deity. Do NOT follow Shaul of Tarsu (The Offense of Tarsus), who is an apostate and false prophet.
Mortaryan 8 months ago
ohh well then it's okay if you don't have much interests. I hope the video is interesting enough for you.
syahirulelias 1 year ago