Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Ethics 301 Guidelines

This forum is for Christians to discuss ethical issues within Christianity. Non-theists, non-christians, and unorthodox Christians should not post here without first getting permission from the area's moderators.

If you have a question about what's OK and what's not OK, please contact the moderators.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What kind of clothing should Christians wear when in public?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    What a convenient negation of the text for our time.

    Paul appeals to φύσις there in 1 Corinthians, just as he refers to φύσις when he condemns homosexuality in Romans.
    Pointing out background data negates nothing. No less a conservative scholar as Dan Wallace applies this as an admonition for men and women to dress distinctively, if not literally with head differences. I assume you're in the business of practicing holy kisses?
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
      Respect cultural mores, too. Scott Nash points out in giving some background to Corinthians that in that culture, a women whose head was uncovered was advertising herself as a prostitute, thus Paul's admonition to women to cover their heads.
      Interesting. In what I've been reading, Craig Keener notes this theory, but says evidence is sporadic so to speak. It might not have necessarily been an association with prostitutes, but it still was very likely the cultural mores of the common people noted being uncovered as improper (with wealthy women less likely to follow that custom; they were more likely to follow the fashion).

      "Fire is catching. If we burn, you burn with us!"
      "I'm not going anywhere. I'm going to stay here and cause all kinds of trouble."
      Katniss Everdeen


      Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by thewriteranon View Post
        Interesting. In what I've been reading, Craig Keener notes this theory, but says evidence is sporadic so to speak. It might not have necessarily been an association with prostitutes, but it still was very likely the cultural mores of the common people noted being uncovered as improper (with wealthy women less likely to follow that custom; they were more likely to follow the fashion).
        I just happen to be writing a seminary paper on the topic this weekend and just happened to write down that in my note taking when I went to the library on Friday. It was from a commentary so not necessarily the most rigorous of contexts. I'm apt to trust Keener as he's conversant with wide varieties of background sources.
        "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
          Pointing out background data negates nothing. No less a conservative scholar as Dan Wallace applies this as an admonition for men and women to dress distinctively, if not literally with head differences.
          I've read Dan Wallace's article when researching this (unless he wrote more than one) and it was merely special pleading to the effect that our time and culture is the norm while what Paul say had to be discounted because it was clearly culturally conditioned

          I assume you're in the business of practicing holy kisses?
          I wouldn't mind if other people were fine with it. This, of course, doesn't detract from correct exegesis.

          Moreover, homosexuality and covering of heads has to do with φύσις, which is much more important than manners of greeting.

          Comment


          • #35
            The appeal to φύσις nonetheless seems cultural; I view his use of the term here similar to Paul's use of typology. It would be difficult to argue that the reference to men having long hair was universally shameful because that would bring shame upon anyone who took the Nazarite vow.

            Originally posted by Paprika View Post
            I've read Dan Wallace's article when researching this (unless he wrote more than one) and it was merely special pleading to the effect that our time and culture is the norm while what Paul say had to be discounted because it was clearly culturally conditioned


            I wouldn't mind if other people were fine with it. This, of course, doesn't detract from correct exegesis.

            Moreover, homosexuality and covering of heads has to do with φύσις, which is much more important than manners of greeting.
            "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
              The appeal to φύσις nonetheless seems cultural
              Originally posted by Paprika
              special pleading to the effect that our time and culture is the norm while what Paul said had to be discounted because it was clearly culturally conditioned

              I view his use of the term here similar to Paul's use of typology.
              In which case then should we not say the same for Romans 1, that when Paul proclaims that homosexual relations are 'unnatural' it is merely cultural?

              It would be difficult to argue that the reference to men having long hair was universally shameful because that would bring shame upon anyone who took the Nazarite vow.
              So what?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Paprika View Post

                In which case then should we not say the same for Romans 1, that when Paul proclaims that homosexual relations are 'unnatural' it is merely cultural?
                The case would be impossible to make because homosexuality is unequivocally condemned elsewhere, without a scintilla of mitigating data. I do get the logic of you saying this because the readings recommended by my own professors make such a reading. Applying this in the case of hair would lead to something of a contradiction because of other biblical examples of long hair as I've alluded to. [/QUOTE]


                So what?
                It is likely that Paul himself took a Nazarite vow in Acts 18:18, and given the strength of the invective used in this Corinthians passage, it seems unlikely he would want to make such an argument that would boomerang against himself if meant universally.

                By the way, when I have some time in a few weeks, would you be interested in a formal debate on women in ministry? I feel like I did not sufficiently defend my stance in my first attempt two years ago, but that this was somewhat masked due to the incompetence of my opponent.
                "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                  The case would be impossible to make because homosexuality is unequivocally condemned elsewhere, without a scintilla of mitigating data.
                  But if Paul is culturally appealing to φύσις it merely means that his appeal to Romans 1 is based on cultural terms, so it means nothing as condemnation. At best we can only used other texts.

                  It is likely that Paul himself took a Nazarite vow in Acts 18:18, and given the strength of the invective used in this Corinthians passage, it seems unlikely he would want to make such an argument that would boomerang against himself if meant universally.
                  One could say the same about the cross and its shame. That shameful acts can be taken on in special cases declared valid by God does not negate the general rule.

                  By the way, when I have some time in a few weeks, would you be interested in a formal debate on women in ministry?
                  No. But I may have time for women in marriage.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    But if Paul is culturally appealing to φύσις it merely means that his appeal to Romans 1 is based on cultural terms, so it means nothing as condemnation. At best we can only used other texts.
                    What if this were the case?
                    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                      What if this were the case?
                      Then one of the best texts against homosexuality would be rendered useless.

                      We can also turn it around: it is patently clear that Paul is referring to the proper state of things when he uses φύσις in Romans. Why shouldn't he be using it in 1 Corinthians as well?

                      The Nazirite objection has been dealt with. The 'cultural' objection is merely us being influenced by our egalitarian cultures and wanting it to be the norm.

                      If anything, in 1 Cor 11 Paul clearly states that 'if anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God' - the various practices regarding the head was a norm across the variegated cultures of the Church - Jew, Greek, and Roman.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I'll respond tomorrow; I have to go to bed now.
                        "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Let us deal with Dan Wallace's argument:

                          Source: https://bible.org/article/what-head-covering-1-cor-112-16-and-does-it-apply-us-today

                          Today, however, the situation is quite different, at least in the West. For a woman to wear a head covering would seem to be a distinctively humiliating experience. Many women--even biblically submissive wives--resist the notion precisely because they feel awkward and self-conscious. But the head covering in Paul’s day was intended only to display the woman’s subordination, not her humiliation. Today, ironically, to require a head covering for women in the worship service would be tantamount to asking them to shave their heads! The effect, therefore, would be just the opposite of what Paul intended.

                          © Copyright Original Source


                          Wallace in his article ignores Paul's argument from φύσις (or the rough equivalent of nature) and the created order which should immediately raise red neon warning signs and loud blaring sirens. His main argument as quoted above is that head-covering would be shameful in the West.

                          That is, he argues that since outsiders would view head-covering as shameful we should not do it. But this is just saying that 'we shouldn't do anything shameful against our own cultural norms just because the outsiders will get the wrong message given their infatuation with egalitarianism' which is just utter rubbish.

                          This 'exegesis' does not even deal with Paul's main arguments from a) the created order or b) φύσις. What it does do is go "herp derp the heathens would view it as shameful today so we don't do it".
                          Last edited by Paprika; 04-20-2015, 12:35 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I was hoping you would interact with my analogy with the general principle of typology earlier; it's generally accepted that the usage of Old Testament referents was used outside of their original contexts throughout the NT, resulting in logic that may not seem "airtight". I think the same basic principle can be applied here. Paul's appeal to nature may not be strictly accurate by modern strands of logic, but for rhetorical purposes, it served its purpose.

                            By the way, I hope you see that your argument that we would lose a prooftext for homosexuality is fallacious. This does not have any objective effect on how we ought to interpet 1 Corinthians 11 (and as I've reiterated, other arguments for homosexuality's sinfulness can be made apart from Romans 1).

                            I do recognize you've presented some strong arguments here; I've been mulling over them today; thus the delay.
                            "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                              I was hoping you would interact with my analogy with the general principle of typology earlier
                              I'll need you to elaborate that, given the varying ways scholars use and interpret 'typology'.

                              But by my understanding of typology it doesn't apply at all; Paul isn't alluding to how some past person/thing/event prefigures a later one, he appeals to φύσις, the way things are by their very created nature since the beginning.

                              By the way, I hope you see that your argument that we would lose a prooftext for homosexuality is fallacious.
                              It's an observation. Not everything is a logical argument.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                                I'll need you to elaborate that, given the varying ways scholars use and interpret 'typology'.

                                But by my understanding of typology it doesn't apply at all; Paul isn't alluding to how some past person/thing/event prefigures a later one, he appeals to φύσις, the way things are by their very created nature since the beginning.
                                I am thinking of typology in the context of reappropriating OT referents outside of their original context. I recognize this is not an example of typology; I only meant it as an example of how some of Paul's references are somewhat creative in nature; possibly even references to then-current maxims. It's not meant as an airtight argument, obviously.

                                I do find it striking how similar Paul's words are to those of Epictetus, who seems to draw an opposite conclusion from nature:

                                Adorn yourself then as man, not as woman. Woman is naturally smooth and delicate; and if she has much hair (on her body), she is a monster and is exhibited at Rome among monsters. And in a man it is monstrous not to have hair; and if he has no hair, he is a monster; but if he cuts off his hairs and plucks them out, what shall we do with him? where shall we exhibit him? and under what name shall we show him? "I will exhibit to you a man who chooses to be a woman rather than a man."
                                http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/di...s.3.three.html

                                In Epictetus's quote, at least, the lines between nature and nurture seem to be blurred somewhat.
                                "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X