1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Again:

1 Corinthians 11:7-9 KJV
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. [8] For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. [9] Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Paul says a man ought not to cover his head (when praying or prophesying). He gives the reason. That reason has nothing whatsoever to do with "local custom" or "cultural practices". Instead, the reason is that the man is the image and glory of God.

The man is the image and glory of God in 1 century Corinth, and the man is still the image and glory of God in 21st century Texas. Therefore, the man ought not to cover his head in 1st century Corinth, and he still ought not to cover his head in 21st century Texas.

The same applies to the woman. Paul asserts "but the woman is the glory of the man". He states WHY this is so: "the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man, neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man." Those reasons were true in 1st century Corinth, and they are true today in 21st century Texas, Florida, England, The Country Formerly Known As Rhodesia, and Hong Kong, and everywhere else. Therefore, the woman ought to be covered when praying and prophesying then, and there, as well as now, and here.

Paul tell us us WHY the man ought to be uncovered, and WHY the woman ought to be covered. We have the reasons. We do not need to search for other reasons, because the Bible flatly tells us exactly WHY. And those reasons have nothing to do with social customs or cultural norms, but are based on how God created the man and the woman and thus what the man and the woman represent in a liturgical (spiritual) sense.

Since the reasons are still valid, the commanded practice is still valid.

***********************

Paul says a man ought not to cover his head (when praying or prophesying).

Well, praying and prophesying is added in, by someone wanting to prove their point. Some don't add it in in their views, when not necessary to do so.

He gives the reason. That reason has nothing whatsoever to do with "local custom" or "cultural practices".

Esaias has concluded so but does this prevent it being true?

? Instead, the reason is that the man is the image and glory of God.

True

The man is the image and glory of God in 1 century Corinth, and the man is still the image and glory of God in 21st century Texas. Therefore, the man ought not to cover his head in 1st century Corinth, and he still ought not to cover his head in 21st century Texas.

Agreed. And quoting Paul thus, still does not present uncontested proof what that cover is. The veil view would contend for what? Am I correct that the veil view sees man's long hair as the cover which dishonours God? And where is the OT command showing it a dishonour there, and also the Beginning and the Age of Conscience? There is no such command there, showing this conclusion as suspect. The instinct view would contend for a view which is in agreement with what Paul, as a lover and scholar of the OT, has extracted from the book he loves. Does the veil view show proofs using the OT scriptures and examples?

The same applies to the woman. Paul asserts "but the woman is the glory of the man". He states WHY this is so: "the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man, neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man." Those reasons were true in 1st century Corinth, and they are true today in 21st century Texas, Florida, England, The Country Formerly Known As Rhodesia, and Hong Kong, and everywhere else. Therefore, the woman ought to be covered when praying and prophesying then, and there, as well as now, and here.

And nothing you have correctly said shows what the covering is, just that she should be covered. Oh, wait. The word Paul uses for covered is the word every gk speaking person uses for the veil, which perhaps not coincidently, is the custom of the gks which most women show regard to when out in public. But Paul can't be referring to that, can he, said facetiously. Anyone thinking that the veil is commanded as the cover, has all of the OT to argue with.

Sadly some Christians present a view which argues with the OT, and continue to do so even when presented with such strong evidence. Something else is at work behind the scenes, which should be eliminated, because it shows those who hold to the veil view in bad light. I now invite to a change of views. Its nicer over on this side. I used to be a follower of uncut long and now hold another nicer scripturally derived view. I did it; so can you. I deny no scripture or scriptural principle with the instinct view. Those who hold the veil view cannot say this.

Paul tell us us WHY the man ought to be uncovered, and WHY the woman ought to be covered. We have the reasons. We do not need to search for other reasons, because the Bible flatly tells us exactly WHY. And those reasons have nothing to do with social customs or cultural norms, but are based on how God created the man and the woman and thus what the man and the woman represent in a liturgical (spiritual) sense.

Sure, when put together this way it makes sense. But it is extremely difficult to show Man acting from only one of their three parts, when Man is a whole; not three whole parts joined to form a one. Yet it appears that you would want to limit it to what is the liturgical, making it only a spiritual exercise. Better is to see the covers in a spiritual/social sense, which encompasses all of life's time and not just a small segment, showing regard to God's order at all times. For a woman to have long hair, as the cover, is both a spiritual and social exercise. For a man to refuse the cover of shame is both a spiritual and social exercise. A view has been found which shows giving of respect from both the spiritual and the social aspects of Man in all of Man's times and not just some. More is better. Better to see Man showing this respect in all their times. Should Man's responses to God not encompass all three parts instead of divying up Man? Is it right to divy up Man and see Man responding from some of their parts and not from others? Man is a whole. God is a whole and the many roles he plays should all be honoured by Man's responses.

Since the reasons are still valid, the commanded practice is still valid.

Are we at a place yet, with all the things shown which show the veil view in bad light, that the opposing conclusions can all be cast off and say that we are done? I think not. Conclusions presented must be personally addressed, discerned true or false, and received or rejected. After this, then final conclusions can be reached. So, in my opinion, not yet done.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

***********************

Well, praying and prophesying is added in, by someone wanting to prove their point. Some don't add it in in their views, when not necessary to do so.

You are right! Paul himself said every man praying or prophesying having his head covered ... so I guess Paul was wanting to prove his point.

It is painfully obvious you are grasping at straws that don't even exist, to try and prove YOUR point. Which you have failed to do from the get-go. You have now descended to the most ridiculous cavils and quibbles, proving you are out past left field so far that you've exited the arena.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

1 Corinthians 11:14-15 KJV
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? [15] But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

One of the issues here......

......As a side note, this discussion of nature is not about "instincts", that would be to reduce "nature" to mere biological impulse. And for humans, "nature" is far more than simple biological impulse.

******************

And we have just seen in what Esaias has just posted, I say in all sincerity, is another example of why Esaias truly is a giant in AFF. The giant that Peter was, (just his shadow was expected to heal people, Ac5.15) didn't prevent his wrong views of the acceptability of gentiles. Being a giant does not prevent wrong views from being held. Esaias's veil-view needs to be reviewed and modified to do away with discrepancies, or replaced with a view without holes, as did Peter's. 1Co11 can be viewed from another scripturally-derived angle without holes. Esaias and others should do so.

Esaias may not realize it, but what he has just described as a 'natural biological order in society', pretty much describes what I believe to be what is seen coming about from instincts. Why does Esaias present some arguments which favour the instincts view? Because Esaias is saying, only to a point, he agrees with me?

It seems that Paul is speaking about "the natural order of society".

Agreed. This is the view I hold of the matter.

While there certainly is a biological element in the discussion of social "nature", biology is not itself the thing being discussed.

I would add and state it thus: While there certainly is a biological element in the discussion of social "nature", biology is not itself the only thing being discussed.

This "sociological nature" evidenced by natural society's standards concerning male and female hair is an illustration of the appropriateness of Paul's apostolic teaching concerning male and female headcovering.

If you say so. What Esaias says in this paragraph is: because nature provides a woman a natural covering is evidence that the veil view is the view to hold, because it also presents such a cover. Sounds logical, doesn't it? Reader, examine that for yourself, in light of what the veil view holders have also said. They've said in so many words, that because God has not said by a command using definite words, not said exactly what the veil is which would plz him, that Man is able to determine themselves what the proper veil is which would plz the Lord. (So Man will decide for God what will plz God! Imagine that! Would you allow someone to determine for you what is suitable for your breakfast? I think not. But this is not all. Read on.) The veil view says the mind of Man can determine what the woman puts on her head at church times, and it is said to be a symbol which shows she symbolizes respect for God's order. Symbols aren't the actual but are representative of the actual. Theoretically then, almost anything could be placed on the head to be this symbol, because it is only a symbol. Perhaps a hair decoration could be this symbol if someone wanted to go in that direction, because God has not specified what. What is seen, in those who follow the veil view, is a wide variety of sizes and styles of the cover, and this is said to be OK, because it is only a symbol. What are used are 1. small doilies. 2. small kerchiefs. 3. Large kerchiefs. 4. Veils which reach the middle of the back. Because the nature of the veil view brings about these possibilities, these varieties are said to be acceptable symbols. But these varieties do not all emulate that which nature provides by example in long hair. Not! And in gk society of Co it was long 'uncut' hair.

This shows a built-in contradiction within the veil view itself. It allows for two things which can be viewed as contradictions. The definition of the symbol does not by necessity agree with what nature teaches. It allows for a contradiction. A view from God would not allow to contradict itself.

You will now perceive the holders of the veil view thinking that the correct symbol should be one which emulates long hair. While fitting appropriately the veil view, this has not yet reconciled the fact that the OT has not commanded the veil. First things first. Reconciling a view of 1Co11 with the OT should first be done, long before any attempts at reconciling which veil is to be used, if indeed any is.

A microscopic view of v5,6, ignoring what is seen in the OT about veils, has led to a view which is itself self-contradictory. It is time to discard the veil view and receive a view which is not self-contradictory. Amen?

As a side note, this discussion of nature is not about "instincts", that would be to reduce "nature" to mere biological impulse.

OK... then... And how about that instinct which has been previously mentioned - the mothering instinct. How does it fit in to what has just been said. Is it natural in the sense of the definition of nature just given? Isn't it more so an instinct that really is one of mere biological impulse? Perhaps so, perhaps. What is true, is that it is almost impossible to divide what is seen in Man into distinct parts. Esaias's nature-biology and sociology are so intermingled that it is hard to see where one starts and another ends. He himself states the the battle for a definition still rages.

Man has both instincts and nature-biology and it should be thought OK to see responses to God's requirements as coming from both simultaneously. The instincts view does so because a woman's long hair is both instinctual and biological and social, all at the same time.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You are right! Paul himself said every man praying or prophesying having his head covered ... so I guess Paul was wanting to prove his point.

It is painfully obvious you are grasping at straws that don't even exist, to try and prove YOUR point. Which you have failed to do from the get-go. You have now descended to the most ridiculous cavils and quibbles, proving you are out past left field so far that you've exited the arena.

I stand corrected.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Now, much has been said about Paul's basis for his teaching concerning headcovering. I have pointed out repeatedly that his stated basis is not social norms or customs, but rather Divinely established hierarchy. Yet, Paul does indeed mention social norms or customs in his remarks about "nature" and long hair. Some take this to mean that Paul's basis is in fact social norms, that is, "nature".

But this is error.

The basis or foundation for Paul's doctrine is not "nature" as used in the latter part of his teaching, but God's order of Creation. Nature (sociological nature) is brought in as a "second witness" or supportive illustration of the verity of his doctrine:

1 Corinthians 11:13-15 KJV
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? [14] Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? [15] But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

After giving his doctrine, and the foundational reasons for his instruction, he then says "Judge in yourselves" whether what he says is correct or not. He is saying the correctness of doctrine can be determined not merely by the simple "because I say so" as an apostle, but by nature itself. He then remarks how nature teaches long hair on a man is a shame, but on a woman it is a glory. He is saying that nature correlates with what he teaches. Thus, the lesson from nature is a supporting illustration of his doctrine. But being a supportive illustration, it is not and cannot be the foundation or basis of the doctrine. It is supportive.

The lesson from nature is not that men should pray uncovered and women should pray covered, but that long hair on a man is a shame and on a woman it is a glory. Thus, he concludes, "her hair is given her for a covering". That is to say, nature (again, sociological nature) is following the same basic pattern that he himself is teaching. He does not appeal to the sociological nature of headcovering in liturgical actions, but in regard to general hair length and the amount of "covering" males and females have in "nature". Thus, the lesson from nature is an analogy, where two things are compared because of their similarity. An analogy is not the very thing it is analogous too, obviously.

***************

Nature (sociological nature) is brought in as a "second witness" or supportive illustration of the verity of his doctrine:

It can be seen this way, but it shouldn't. It is in fact an error.

First things first. You again put a view of what is seen in 1Co11, before a view of what is seen in the Beginning. Doing this shows the NT as the foundation for the OT. It is not too wearying for me to continually say that what is said to be true about 1Co11 for the NT, should also be said to be true for the OT. All the players of the Beginning are playing the same game as those in 1Co11. Saying they all play by the same rules shows God as a consistent God. Do you believe A&E were playing 'God's Order' game, Esaias? Do you believe Paul teaches the Co to play the same 'God's Order' game? Apparently not, because there are no rules for this game shown at the Beginning, but you insist that Paul commands a rule for the NT game.If it were true, then the "second witness" or supportive illustration of the verity of his doctrine would be seen showing this same support for an OT command to keep God's order. If it had, then we wouldn't be debating. There is no such command seen in the Beginning. The fact that the thing which it is said to support, doesn't appear as a command (only deduced by a rational mind when it is seen in the Beginning without command) this prevents the possibility that the natural-biological-social process is present to support this as a command. It is supporting, in the OT, the principle known only by the God-given rational mind. Thus, the supportive "second witness" " is not actually a second support but the first support for God's expected but not commanded way. It frustrates all readers that you do not acknowledge this as true, that you do not acknowledge God did not command in the Beginning. As also repeatedly said, the Age of Conscience and the time of Law also do not show any command for co/unco. We'll not wait for the explanation you won't give to this, because you would already have given it, had you had a logical explanation.

After giving his doctrine, and the foundational reasons for his instruction, he then says "Judge in yourselves" whether what he says is correct or not. He is saying the correctness of doctrine can be determined not merely by the simple "because I say so" as an apostle, but by nature itself. He then remarks how nature teaches long hair on a man is a shame, but on a woman it is a glory.

With this kind of talk, that nature teaches, we're getting much closer to instincts-view kind of talk. Is Esaias weakening his veil view stance?

He is saying that nature correlates with what he teaches.

This almost sounds like what an instinct view would do, when forgetting that Esaias also believes in a command for the veil. Is Esaias sticking his foot in the water to test its suitability for a swim?

Thus, the lesson from nature is a supporting illustration of his doctrine. But being a supportive illustration, it is not and cannot be the foundation or basis of the doctrine. It is supportive.

Or rather this. The veil-view command can be seen as incongruent with the nature-biology-sociological process and it may be incorrect to say that the nature-biology-sociological process is showing support as an illustration. Doing so sees everything remaining true except for a removing of the veil command (which is out of sync with the OT's view of the veil, anyway) and also the supposed second support, which has been plugged into the discussion to show support the OT doesn't give.

The lesson from nature is not that men should pray uncovered and women should pray covered, but that long hair on a man is a shame and on a woman it is a glory.

What this could mean is that it has come out of their nature as humans. Their human nature is reflected in the things they feel and what they hold to. This is where customs come from - from what humans experience by human life. It is almost a definition of what a human instinct is. It also explains the why of the veil custom, which is held by many societies in many times. The custom reflects what is in Man's nature. Jealousy in a man may have inspired the first veil when he asked it to be worn by his wife. Or, in a woman's desire to show she regarded her marriage commitment by, hiding with a veil, that which brought unwanted romantic attention - her hair.

Thus, responses to Man's own nature, which has been given by God, are expressed both spiritually and socially at the same time. In the instincts view of it, the spiritual nature of a woman's desire to plz her man is expressed by a social response - long hair. Doing so shows her spiritual/social life as expressing respect to God's order. For the man, the spiritual nature given by God in an instinct, shows man covering the head when shamed. It is a social response to a spiritual value. Any shamed man is a dishonour to his creator. The shame cover is a symbol of shaming God, and to be avoided. The man's spiritual qualities are also expressed socially. When keeping himself from displaying the symbol he shows regard to God's order.

A man's long hair and a veil/mantle on the head both similarly act as a shame symbol. Why believe this instead of seeing long hair as the sin-cover which brings shame? Because God is seen as commanding men to have long hair in the OT. This is out of sync with the misinterpreted idea that long hair is sinful. Complicating this somewhat further is the lack of defn of what is long. If long is a sin, then it has not been clearly defined, leading holders of the long hair sin view to guess at when they cross the sin-line. Better is to avoid this hole and hold a view which doesn't present a hole. Better is to see Paul referring to the shame cover, as the veil/mantle which hangs down the head, and this is man's cover. When doing so it doesn't result in having a hole. Thank you Jesus for a man's cover view which doesn't have holes. It is a scripturally sourced OT view which lines up with Paul's love for the OT and with the lack of seeing an OT command against long hair. The long-hair-as-a-sin view does not have OT support, even having examples and commands opposing it.

Neither of these examples of either man or woman are from commands of God, but come out of how God has made them. They come from Man's instincts, and instincts can't be seen to be commands, because they are inherently 'hidden', not up front like a command. A command is not hidden.

Thus, he concludes, "her hair is given her for a covering". That is to say, nature (again, sociological nature) is following the same basic pattern that he himself is teaching. He does not appeal to the sociological nature of headcovering in liturgical actions, but in regard to general hair length and the amount of "covering" males and females have in "nature". Thus, the lesson from nature is an analogy, where two things are compared because of their similarity. An analogy is not the very thing it is analogous too, obviously.

Sure, this is logically presented and seems applicable to what is seen. But when believed as the view to hold, it presents holes, which the veil- view holders do not patch, because the Word and the misinterpreted facts prevent it. As you have taught us, Esaias, taking the first steps in the wrong direction leads astray. The first steps of co/unco should be at the Beginning, not in 1Co11.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias View Post 212

The lesson from nature is not that men should pray uncovered and women should pray covered, but that long hair on a man is a shame and on a woman it is a glory. Thus, he concludes, "her hair is given her for a covering". That is to say, nature (again, sociological nature) is following the same basic pattern that he himself is teaching. He does not appeal to the sociological nature of headcovering in liturgical actions, but in regard to general hair length and the amount of "covering" males and females have in "nature". Thus, the lesson from nature is an analogy, where two things are compared because of their similarity. An analogy is not the very thing it is analogous too, obviously.You'd almost think that Esaias is an apologete for the uncut long or the instincts view the way he talks here. See post 210 and my reply to it in post 243.


It should also be pointed out that, contrary to some people's ideas (not expressed here in the thread, but the ideas are indeed out there), the practice of headcovering does NOT mean long hair on a man and short hair on a woman is perfectly fine. If nature teaches us what Paul says it teaches us, then it is (sociologically) unnatural for a man to have long hair and for a woman to have short hair. Before discussing the lesson from nature, he asserts that it is in fact a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven. That was true then, it is true now.

Does the fact that today's society feels no shame in such Biblically shameful things mean they are not shameful anymore? No, of course not.

The Bible is God's Word to mankind. It is given to Israel so that the Church may teach all nations. Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. When the Bible declares that something is natural, even sociologically natural, then it is just that. And societies that operate contrary to Biblical notions of nature are thereby identified as un-natural. And, they need to be corrected.

So, wearing a headcovering doesn't mean it's cool for a woman to chop her hair off, for example.

I would also point out that, even though the Bible here clearly teaches that long hair on a woman is good, and on a man is bad, the Bible does not say anything about hair length and "angels assisting or answering prayers", nor does it say anything about whether a person's prayers will be heard or not depending on their hair length. We should think of natural hair, not magic hair.

*********************

If nature teaches us what Paul says it teaches us, then it is (sociologically) unnatural for a man to have long hair and for a woman to have short hair. Before discussing the lesson from nature, he asserts that it is in fact a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven. That was true then, it is true now.

Do away with Esaias's view of the veil command and we have here an argument for the instincts view, or the uncut long view partially.

Does the fact that today's society feels no shame in such Biblically shameful things mean they are not shameful anymore? No, of course not.

The veil was never commanded in the OT, and if a shame there, then it was a societal shame. Thus, because Paul's values come from the OT, he should be seen saying something similar in !co11, which he does in v5. For a woman not to wear a veil should be seen as against a custom and not against a command.

If long hair was a shame for a man in the OT, then it was not from a command of God. In fact, God would be seen as commanding the shame when commanding long hair, in the long-time Nazarite. Thus God would command his own dishonour, when scripture is misinterpreted.

That society has no shame today is because they overide the shame they normally would have felt when their society agreed it was a shame. Some women feel no shame when refusing for various reasons the mothering instinct, even while contrary to natural-biological- societal reasons.

When the Bible declares that something is natural, even sociologically natural, then it is just that. And societies that operate contrary to Biblical notions of nature are thereby identified as un-natural. And, they need to be corrected.

Agreed. Thank God for his Word, correctly interpreted. The reason for presenting of the instinct view is to correct the veil view and uncut long view's wrong interpretations and holes. But before for I go off half-cocked it should first be proved or disproved as a new view of 1Co11 that it is.

the Bible does not say anything about hair length

Oops, must be careful here and state that it is only true depending on how one defines komao. The lex says it means uncut long hair, referring both to men and women. See v14 for the man and v15 for the woman. Depending on how you look at it, uncut is a length. And this is another reason why views of 1Co11 should be examined, to avoid holes.

We should think of natural hair, not magic hair.

Amen. We should think of hair naturally, spiritually and sociologically.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Quote: Originally Posted by donfriesen1 View Post 215

Just to make sure we are on the same page, plz define what you mean by instincts. Twice I've provided the definition I use, and now, here we are, with you using a use of instinct which I don't use - I presume.
I ask for this because the instinct a bird has to migrate, is God-given. It is not irrational, but necessary. Does God install irrational instinct features in either birds or humans? I would not describe such a feature as unreasoning. It is a God-given feature, installed by God and describing it as unreasoning is describing God as being likewise. What motivates your desire to describe God so?

Instincts are irrational because they are not based in the reason
of the particular creature. I think you misuse the term irrational here. To say instincts are irrational does not mean that the instinct leads to an unreasonable action. Rather, it means that the instinct arises from a faculty other than the reason. The bird does not migrate because it reasons that it is better to do so. Describing instincts as irrational does not at all imply that God is irrational. Again, you have misunderstood the meanings and usages of the term. Jerking your hand away from a hot stove burner when you accidentally touch it is an instinctive reaction. It is not based on the reason, you don't touch the hot stove, then reason your way through a selection of different courses of action, determine what is best, then act on it. Rather, your nervous system bypasses your reason to cause an involuntary muscular action to protect your hand. It is in this manner that instincts are spoken of as "irrational" by pretty much everyone who discusses the difference between instinct and reason.

Oh, did you mean Instincts are non-rational vs irrational? I'd bite on that defn but not as you use irrational. I most often use irrational as the similar: unreasonable.

Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more. ir·ra·tion·al /i(r)ˈraSH(ə)nəl/ adjective 1. not logical or reasonable.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Natural law is rooted in the idea that there is a God-given order to society, which can be discerned through human reasoning. This concept is closely tied to the notion of "the law of nature and nature's God," as mentioned in the United States Declaration of Independence......

......Humanity has proven that society cannot function without the rule of law which is based on God's commandments, which is why Romans 3:23-25 concludes that all have sinned fall short of God's glory. Mankind apart from God's commandments (the rule of law) follow their instinctual nature and live lives that are "nasty, brutish, and short."

*****************

Natural law is rooted in the idea that there is a God-given order to society, which can be discerned through human reasoning. This concept is closely tied to the notion of "the law of nature and nature's God," as mentioned in the United States Declaration of Independence.

This natural law concept presented by Esaias and Amanah is a great concept. Kudos to whoever first penned it. But no kudos to whoever thought that it brings us the veil command.

This perspective posits that natural law is based on the inherent design and purpose of human nature, which is oriented towards the common good and the flourishing of individuals and society. Natural law is thus seen as a moral framework that guides human behavior and promotes the well-being of all people. (Romans 1:20)

Maybe. Without the Word of God many societies in the past became idolatrous, driven solely by self-interest and immediate gratification. Ro1.20. Natural law did little to bring them to God. Yet the veil view would have us believe that natural law brought us a veil command, when it had not brought us the most basic righteousness concepts. Rather than say it this way, because it distorts the facts presented by the veil view, I'll say, in their view it supports the idea that Paul commands the veil. It does not actually bring about the idea of the veil command, per se.

In contrast, instinctual behavior is driven solely by self-interest and immediate gratification.

Plz apply what you say here to the mothering instinct, making comments thereto. (Twice, in other posts in this tread, I have pointed out that Amanah uses a different defn of instincts than I do. She again, frustratingly, in this post reverts to using this other defn. What motivates this behaviour is a mystery. We are then unable to have a meaningful discussion if we talk of different things. If I talk about apples and you talk about oranges, how can our comments have any relevance? Points you make using your definition do not then apply to the discussion, when everyone else uses instincts other than you. Your definition of instincts is not wrong. It just doesn't apply to the way I've used it in the instincts view. The instincts seen in Ge3.16 or mothering instincts are not driven solely by self-interest and immediate gratification, nor are they brutish and nasty, are they? You must be aware of this, though it seems you are not. If you aren't, then this is said to bring this awareness to you, again. But when this has previously been pointed out, then it leads to the thinking that you do it purposely for undeclared reason. Reader, your guess is as good as mine why Amanah would do this thing.)

A great example of this concept can be seen in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, where Paul discusses the issue of head coverings for men and women during worship. When appealing to "nature" (Greek: φύσις, phusis), Paul is referencing the created order, rather than instinctual or brutish behavior.

Agreed, but do head coverings come out of this created order? We see no mention of the veil at the time of the referrred to creation. If this were true then we might see head coverings used by the majority in a majority of times. Has anyone determined that this is indeed fact? If so, then it might be evidence in its favour.

Does Amanah here offer as an alternate defn of phusis, that it also means instinctual or brutish behavior. Which gk lex does she reference for this defn of phusis? If such defn is not found in a lex, then what would compel a comparison of phusis with instinctual or brutish behavior? What illicits placing the word instinctual alongside the phrase brutish behaviour? It is not relevant or apt. [Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages · in·stinc·tu·al /inˈstiNG(k)(t)SHə(wə)l/ adjective relating to or denoting an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior; based on instinct. "an instinctual survival response"]

In verse 14, Paul asks rhetorically, "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him?" Here, Paul is appealing to the natural order of creation, which provides a moral framework for understanding what is proper and fitting for human behavior.

And do we seriously think that Paul here refers to brutish behaviour (instinct) compelling a man to wear long hair? Hair quite naturally grows out of the skin without forces of brutishness causing it to do so. Does God command a Nazarite man to have the brutish behaviour of long hair? God does not command men to be brutes, does he? Did Israelis, when under the influence of their most godly king (David), see Absalom as having the most beautiful appearance of a man in Israel because they were influenced by brutish thoughts? What motivates this line of reasoning from you when you must know these things, is unsettling? It seems to me that two varying things are spoken of by the same word, instincts.

By referencing "nature," Paul is drawing on the idea that the created order reflects God's design and intentions for human life. This approach assumes that there is a moral and spiritual dimension to the natural world, which can inform and guide human behavior.

Sounds suspiciously like an instinct, like I have used this word.

In contrast, brutish instincts or mere naturalism would suggest that human behavior is solely determined by instinct, desire, or self-interest, without reference to a higher moral or spiritual order.

This describes how animals act. They show no regard to the things of God. Man does regard because it is in their nature to.

Paul's appeal to "nature" in this context reflects his broader theological framework, which sees the natural world as reflecting God's character and purposes.

You say that the natural world reflects the character of God, yet you would not intend to suggest that the natural world of brutish beasts reflects God's nature, would you? And so we see even Amanah using two varying definitions of nature. Could it then be possible that the word instincts can also have varying connotations? Of course.

This approach provides a moral and spiritual foundation for understanding human behavior and relationships, including issues like head coverings in worship.

But not yet describing what that head covering is.

Natural law provides a moral foundation for human society,...

What about the Word of God? Most would say that it alone provides the moral foundation for a godly society. It had been given some 2500 yrs after Natural Law was given, because what natural law, some times described as the conscience by some people, had failed to be responded to by Man, necessitated that God provide written Law to supplement what the natural law/conscience wasn't strong enough to do alone. (see a related thread: John3 and Romans2: Part1)

...one that is grounded in the God-given order of creation and accessible through human reasoning and confirms 1 Corinthians 11 as a command rather than a suggestion.

Anyone can say it like that, but is it true? As you've just described it, long hair on a woman can also be seen to come from her God given nature; and man's short hair from his God given nature. This same thing is what I've been saying all along as coming out of instincts. We thus talk about the same process and you call it nature and I call it instincts - and I get called down for it. Oh, well, such is life when some misunderstand facts or want them to be ignored. The veil view does not want to understand that the OT has not commanded the veil, and ignores this fact when compiling a doctrine on 1Co11. Phooey on this methodology.

Mankind apart from God's commandments (the rule of law) follow their instinctual nature and live lives that are "nasty, brutish, and short."

And again you use a different defn of instincts than I. Why do you comment on this thread when we talk about different things, especially after I long ago asked for your defn of your use, and have pointed out that we use varying defns? What motivates this behaviour?

[Amanah]

Don. please provide a simple definition and explanation of your definition of instincts. Maybe that will help?

As far as the mothering instinct, many women clamour for the right to murder their unborn children, contrary to the God given natural rule of law for a just society.

The number of abortions performed annually in the US has seen some fluctuations. According to the Guttmacher Institute, there were approximately 930,000 abortions performed in 2020, with an abortion rate of 14.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 years ¹.

More recent data from the Guttmacher Institute shows that in 2023, an estimated 1,037,000 abortions occurred in the formal healthcare system, representing a rate of 15.9 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age. This is an 11% increase since 2020 ².

It's worth noting that abortion rates have been declining over the past few decades, but the recent increase may be attributed to changes in access to abortion services following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision in 2022 ¹ ².

www.guttmacher.org

The so called mothering instinct results in lives that are nasty brutish and short for many children, abortion, child abuse, foster care, childhood poverty. Outside of a just society life is brutish and short.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Your reasoning is that nothing can be commanded unless it was commanded to Adam and Eve. Yet, nothing was commanded them except to not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, according to your reasoning, nothing can be seen as a command except to not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

When Moses declared that the Lord had commanded sacrifice was to be offered nowhere except at the place that God specified (at the Tabernacle), you would be there shouting "Not so! For such a command was never found in the Beginning! If God expects people to honor Him by only sacrificing at the Tabernacle, then He expects that at all times, including the Beginning with Adam and Eve. Yet there is no such command! Therefore Moses does err and there is no requirement to sacrifice only at the Tabernacle. In fact, Adam and Eve were never commanded to sacrifice at all! Therefore all these sacrifices are just voluntary, and not commanded. If you don't want to, don't make a fuss over it. Because it was not seen to be commanded in The Beginning (tm) it cannot be commanded now!"

At which point you would have been stoned to death for blasphemy and leading people away from God.

****************

Your reasoning is that nothing can be commanded unless it was commanded to Adam and Eve. Yet, nothing was commanded them except to not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, according to your reasoning, nothing can be seen as a command except to not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

I'm sorry you see it that way. I do not. What I have tried to say is that nothing of co/unco was commanded of A&E. Read Ge1,2 to see this as true. God had been silent with A&E on the subject of co/unco. He commands neither long hair nor the veil for the female, nor short hair for the male, in the Beginning ch's of Ge. Further to this, he had not even commanded them that they must respect his order of authority. This leads to the question: did God expect them to reverence his order of authority or not, and if so, did he expect them to do so symbolically, with symbols? In order for God to be consistent and not to show respect of persons, he has no choice but to expect that they also would, if all other humans do.

He has always thought humans should respect his order of authority. A&E are the principal examples of humans as firsts. It should be thought that A&E would be expected by God to follow co/unco. Yet we see no words from God by command to this effect for them in the Beginning. There are also no commands there for its keeping with symbols. Because of this, we look for an explanation which explains why, for what is obviously required of the principals of humanity. They, along with all humanity must be thought they need to show respect to God's order. The answer for why there are no commands, is found in the fact that when God makes them, he makes them in his own image. They have the rationality thinking that God possesses, by this image. By this rational thinking it becomes obvious to them that they must regard reverence to God's order of authority, even while without commanding it. They are expected to do so by it, and that without command from God. It is natural law to think so. God is not unjust to expect something of Man when Man has the capacity, the ability, to comprehend it. What is known to Man in the Beginning of co/unco is known by this ability. God did not command co/unco at the Beginning, yet expects it of Man because his image in Man reveals it. He follows/uses this precedent/method, shown at the Beginning, with Man throughout history. We have no evidence that it has been rescinded.

To say that I believe that nothing can be commanded unless it was commanded to Adam and Eve doesn't mean he can't ever command. That is not what I had said, nor what I believe.

When Moses declared that the Lord had commanded sacrifice was to be offered nowhere except at the place that God specified (at the Tabernacle), you would be there shouting "Not so! For such a command was never found in the Beginning! If God expects people to honor Him by only sacrificing at the Tabernacle, then He expects that at all times, including the Beginning with Adam and Eve. Yet there is no such command! Therefore Moses does err and there is no requirement to sacrifice only at the Tabernacle. In fact, Adam and Eve were never commanded to sacrifice at all! Therefore all these sacrifices are just voluntary, and not commanded. If you don't want to, don't make a fuss over it. Because it was not seen to be commanded in The Beginning (tm) it cannot be commanded now!"

No one but you uses the logic method shown here.