Every pastor/priest in America preaches a sermon on 1st Corinthians 11:

"Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels...But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God."

...and immediately restores the practice of women wearing headcoverings (hats or scarves) in church, keeping a supply of head coverings for visitors who arrive without one and denying admittance to any who rebel against this. The rebellion against this clear Christian teaching is a second half of the 20th century phenomenon in the west. Let's push back against it.



Or are the cowards afraid to tackle feminism in the house of God?

Sure. Keep going and give hippies a haircut as well.

Realitybites said:

---

Every pastor/priest in America preaches a sermon on 1st Corinthians 11:

"Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels...But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God."

...and immediately restores the practice of women wearing headcoverings (hats or scarves) in church, keeping a supply of head coverings for visitors who arrive without one and denying admittance to any who rebel against this. The rebellion against this clear Christian teaching is a second half of the 20th century phenomenon in the west. Let's push back against it.



Or are the cowards afraid to tackle feminism in the house of God?

---

The funniest part of this post is that the same poster that believes Scripture plainly forbids modern Christians from setting aside first-century head-covering practices enthusiastically follows a woman whose entire public career consists of speaking to, persuading, instructing, criticizing, and exercising authority over large audiences of men. Apparently, traditional biblical gender roles end exactly where the poster's favorite influencer begins.

Nothing exposes selective literalism faster than a man demanding head coverings on Sunday while taking his weekly catechism from Candace Owens on Monday.

Realitybites said:

---

Sure. Keep going and give hippies a haircut as well.

---

But what if the hippies are women, do they get haircuts as well? Isn't that removing the very modesty cover Paul extolled be worn in 1 Corinthians 11?

303Bear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Sure. Keep going and give hippies a haircut as well.

---

But what if the hippies are women, do they get haircuts as well? Isn't that removing the very modesty cover Paul extolled be worn in 1 Corinthians 11?

---

Obviously not.

Leave it to Mossad Mothra to drag Candace Owens into a discussion on how feminism overthrew the biblical mandate for head coverings in church in the 20th (not the 1st) century and how that practice should be restored.

But when you're all in on Israel first all the time, that is what happens.

Realitybites said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Sure. Keep going and give hippies a haircut as well.

---

But what if the hippies are women, do they get haircuts as well? Isn't that removing the very modesty cover Paul extolled be worn in 1 Corinthians 11?

---

Obviously not.

Leave it to Mossad Mothra to drag Candace Owens into a discussion on how feminism overthrew the biblical mandate for head coverings in church in the 20th (not the 1st) century and how that practice should be restored.

But when you're all in on Israel first all the time, that is what happens.

---

LOL. If I were a betting man, I would have won the jackpot on this deflection. I point out a blatant contradiction in our resident brownshirt's theological position on women, and he responds, "but Israel."

About as predictable as the sunrise. Their preoccupation with the jews is incredible.

And yet, the question remains: If biblical gender roles are as clear and binding as he claims, why is Candace Owens the exception?

I guess it will forever remain a mystery...