The trouble with drivel like this is that it dishonors God by trivializing Him.... I mean, with all the intractable problems, unspeakable, incaculable heartache and suffering confronting His creation every second of every day, is this all the Overlord of the Universe needs to concern Himself with?
Can someone post the lastest QFR in the july WT
by JT 22 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
chester
JT,
My July 15 WT just came in the mail. Here is the full text.
Questions From Readers
In what situations is it appropriate for a Christian woman to wear a head covering for spiritual reasons?
"Every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head," wrote the apostle Paul. Why? Because of the divine principle of headship: "The head of a woman is the man." Praying or preaching in the Christian congregation is normally the responsibility of a man. Hence, when a Christian woman cares for matters pertaining to worship that ordinarily would be performed by her husband or by a baptized man, she should wear a head cover-
ing.-1 Corinthians 11:3-10.Situations in which a Christian woman ought to wear a head covering may arise in her marriage relationship. For example, when the family comes together for a Bible study or for a meal, the husband normally takes the lead in teaching them and in representing them in prayer to God. If he is an unbeliever, however, this responsibility may fall on his wife. therefore, when praying aloud on behalf of herself and others or when conducting a Bible study with her children in the presence of her husband, a christian sister rightly wears a head covering. If her husband is not present, the wife need not wear a head covering since she is divinely authrized to do so.
Proverbs 1:8; 6:20.What, though, if a young son in the family is a dedicated, baptized servant of Jehovah God? Since the son is a member of the Christian congregation, he should receive instruction from its male members. (1 Timothy 2:12) If his father is a believer, the son should be taught by him. However, if the father is absent, then the mother should wear a head covering if she conducts a Bible study with the young baptized son and the other children. Whether she calls on the baptized son to pray at such a study or at meal-time is left to her discretion. She may feel that he is not yet sufficiently capable and may choose to offer prayer herself. If she chooses to pray on such an occasion, she should wear a head covering.
While sharing in certain congregation activities, Christian women may need to wear a head covering. At a midweek meeting for field service, for example, there may only be Christian sisters present, no baptized males. There may be other occasions when no baptized males are
present at a congregation meeting. If a sister has to handle duties usually performed by a brother at a congregationally arranged meeting or meeting for field service, she should wear a head covering.Must Christian women wear a head covering when giving oral or sign-language translation of Bible discourses or when publicly reading the paragraphs from a Bible study aid that is being used at a congregation meeting? No. Sisters handling these duties are not presiding or teaching. similiarly, no head covering is required for sisters taking part in demonstrations, relating experiences, or handling student talks in the Theocratic Ministry School.
While teaching within the congregation is to be done by baptized men, both men and women have the responsibility of preaching and teaching outside the congregation. (Matthew 24:14; 28:19, 20) So when a Christian woman is speaking to outsiders about God's Word in the
presence of a male Witness of Jehovah, she would not need to wear a head covering. However, the situation is different when a regular, scheduled Bible study is being conducted in a home and a dedicated, baptized male is present. This is a prearranged session of
teaching where the one conducting the study actually presides. Under these circumstances, a study becomes an extension of the congregation. If a baptized female Witness conducts such a study with a baptized male Witness present, she would rightly wear a head cover-
ing. However, the dedicated brother should offer prayer. A sister would not pray in the presence of a dedicated brother unless there were some exceptional reason, such as the brother's having lost the physical power of speech.A Christian sister may on occasion be accompanied on a Bible study by an unbaptized male Kingdom publisher. If she wishes, she may ask him to conduct the study. But since he could not properly represent the baptized sister in prayer to Jehovah, it would be proper for her to
pray at the study. When conducting the study and when praying under these circumstances, the sister should cover her head. Even though the male publisher is not yet baptized, outsiders identify him with the congregation because of his preaching activity.
"The woman ought to have a sign of authority upon her head because of the angels," wrote the apostle Paul. Yes, Christian sisters have the privilege of being good examples to the millions of angels who loyally continue to subject themselves to Jehovah. How appropriate that godly women give due consideration to wearing a head covering when the occasion calls for it!
THE WATCHTOWER lULY 15. 2002 pages 26-27 -
witchywoman
Hi, I`m new.
I rememer that covering the head if a male was present. How embarassing. And the brothers actually made sure we did it. Why wasn`t the WTBTS telling the pedophiles to cover their dicks and keep them covered around other peoples babies. It just that these baby rapers make me hot when I think of all the bull-shit they fed us. I too can`t beleive I ever fell for this load of shit -
Farkel
: But since he could not properly represent the baptised sister in prayer to Jehovah, it would be proper for her to pray at the study.
Jesus to God: "God, a member of the "unbaptized male publisher CLASS" is praying to you in the company of a member of the "baptized female publisher CLASS."
God: "Turn the volume off, then. Improper representation! IMPROPER REPRESENTATION! I will hear none of it!"
Just another piece of insanity brought to you by the "Brooklyn Idiots CLASS."
Farkel
-
Michael3000
There are a few on this board I'd like to subject to my pen...Oops! Wrong thread...
-
witchywoman
I beleive you are right, silly me. The elders in our congregations made sure that we always were in submission to Jehovah by wearing the scarf to lead a meeting, bible study or other such things around men or baptized men, so much so that lengthy, articles are attributed to the subject. What did that accomplish?
Yes I am new, should I not have an opinion?
The WTBTS has spent years keeping women in their place, while other issues did not exist, right.
I am new at all of this, and have learned a lot from this site.
So I will leave this thread. -
LDH
But since he could not properly represent the baptized sister in prayer to Jehovah, it would be proper for her to
pray at the study.Ok, she holds "rank" over him as a baptized publisher, but still needs to cover her head? WHY?!?!?
Does not the Bible say that Jehovah gave women their hair as a head covering?!?!?
Die, Brooklyn, DIE!!!!
Lisa
-
Pathofthorns
A sister would not pray in the presence of a dedicated brother unless there were some exceptional reason, such as the brother's having lost the physical power of speech.
Okay, so I'm laughing. I realize this is really twisted thinking. But you wonder how they can write stuff like this with a straight face... lol Thanks apostle Paul [8>].
Path
-
aChristian
The words in 1 Cor. 11:3-10, concerning women being required to wear head coverings when praying in the company of men, did not actually reflect the apostle Paul's own beliefs about how women should be treated in the Christian Church. In these verses, and in some others such as 1 Cor. 14:34,35 and 1 Tim. 2:8-15, Paul was citing a false teaching that had been sent to him for his critique. He did so for the purpose of correcting the false teaching and for the purpose of rebuking those who promoted it. For a full and careful reading of the context of these passages shows that is in fact what Paul then did.
Many Christians have long had a very hard time understanding how the apostle Paul could have written words such as those in 1 Cor. 11:3-10; 1 Cor. 14:34,35 and 1 Tim. 2:8-15. Why? Because Paul encouraged Christians to, "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ." (1 Cor. 11:1) And the Bible reveals that Jesus always treated women with respect and gladly discussed spiritual things with them. ( Luke 10:36-42; John 4:7-27) And because Paul was the same man who said that, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28) And because we know that Paul accepted both women prophets and women deacons. (Acts 18:26; 21:9 Romans 16:1)
Besides Paul's words in 1 Cor.11:1, "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ," his words in the next verse also show that Paul was about to discuss a false teaching that was then circulating in the Church. For in verse 2 Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings just as I passed them on to you."
The next words Paul wrote, recorded in verses 3-10, were those in which he quoted the false teaching which the Corinthians had sent him to comment on. That teaching was this: "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."
The contents of the next several verses, 11-16, clearly show them to be Paul's rebuttal to the false teaching he had just referenced. For the words in these verses clearly rebut the arguments advanced in verses 3-10. Thus they can only be understood as being Paul's own explanation of the true Christian position on this issue, the position which Paul was really promoting. That position was this: "In the Lord, however (notice the word "however" which Paul used to contrast the true Christian position to the false teaching he had just quoted), woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God."
After quoting those who demanded that women wear head coverings to show their submission to men Paul said, "Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? ... LONG HAIR is given to her AS a covering." So, Paul was saying women do not need head coverings as some false teachers were demanding. Furthermore, Paul clearly pointed out that men and women were equal in the faith. "For as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God." (verse 12). This argument by Paul clearly refuted the false teachers' statement made in verses 3 and 8 that, "The head of woman is man," because "man did not come from woman, but woman from man."
The now common "male chauvinistic" understanding of Paul's words developed in large part due to the way in which Paul wrote. Paul's use of sharp contrasts in place of clear transitional phrases is largely responsible for causing some of what he wrote to be widely misunderstood. However, Paul's words would have been perfectly understandable by those to whom he originally addressed his letters. For they knew what Paul had previously taught on such matters. And they knew the teachings of others which they had asked Paul to comment on. However, when a third party, such as ourselves, reads the letters which Paul wrote they do not have such "inside" knowledge. And without it, it is sometimes difficult to recognize when exactly Paul was quoting false teachers and when he was actually setting forth true Christian teachings. Because of such difficulties in understanding Paul's letters many of the words Paul actually wrote for the purpose of refuting false doctrine later became widely used to promote false doctrine. And in the process Paul, God and the New Testament have acquired very undeserved reputations as being "anti-woman."
-
JT
after reading the post of comments here is it so clear to anyone lurking that they really need to do some serious examination of this religion in veiw of the fact that it impacts EVERY FACET OF THIER LIVES