It is a little uncomfortable for me to bring your attention to these "such an example"-- which actually come from your posts.
You refer here to "the fact that every woman needs a man to be her covering." Every. Woman.
Then there's this, where you are asking for Scripture on how to respond to a woman who asserts "her covering is now Christ and she therefore needs no earthy man as her covering." If a woman asserted that to me, I would tell her that Christ's covering is sufficient. Why were you asking for "Bible verses related to why a woman needs to have a covering..."? Did you find those Bible verses?
Responses to me today have brought up terms like "garbage" and "red herring" and the "read your Bible." Today's tone is uncharacteristic of what I have observed in the past on this forum. Maybe it's just who is on today, but I find it discouraging.
And I don't find that your approach inspires confidence that you're seeking to be iron sharpening iron. You shift the goal posts. Again, no one was talking about salvation, but you keep talking about how Jesus is sufficient, even though you've already identified that assertion as specifically related to salvation
when the discussion is not focused on salvation.
To me it's just silly to pretend that women only need salvation. "Sure, ma'am, you've got your covering -- if all you're seeking is salvation -- but what about protection, provision and due benevolence.?" Between him and His Father, Yeshua directly and solely provides the salvation, because we're incapable of providing that for ourselves. However, the manner in which They provide the covering for women is
indirectly, through male members of the Body of Christ.
And if it's a red herring, then it's a red herring. Or is it your expectation that every time you provide a statement that doesn't address the actual meat of a discussion but instead functions as a diversion to provide you with what you assume to be a legitimate opportunity to engage in the verbal jousting you hope to inject into a discussion in order to divert it to the discussion you'd rather have that the only proper way to confront you is to point out that you're providing a statement that doesn't address the actual meat of a discussion but instead functions as a diversion to provide you with what you assume to be a legitimate opportunity to engage in the verbal jousting you hope to inject into that discussion in order to divert it into becoming one you'd
rather have? Because, to me, it's just far more efficient to point out that it's a red herring rather than have you derail it.
I have no problem with you quoting
anything I've written. Given the breadth of time over which I've written, some of it I may want to disown, but most of it I will stand solidly behind. Just please do me a favor and ensure that you're comparing apples to apples. Perhaps you could define what
you mean by covering, given that you want to challenge what tends to be the pretty consistent use of the term among us here. What is
your definition,
@Communication? Once we know that, we may have to agree to disagree on definitions, but I may be 100% ready to agree with you that, based on
your definition, no woman
needs covering. Until then, though, I'm going to rest on a lifetime of observation and study of Scripture -- but perhaps most especially on just having enough common sense to look around the world to see just how peachy life is or isn't for women who pretend that they don't need men. If you were involved in the more extended discussions I had with those who responded to me privately, you would know that the widow in question was simultaneously declaring Christ as all the covering she needed while struggling with her needs for physical intimacy and orchestrating a whole network of men in her life to take care of the various things she either didn't want to have to handle or had no clue
how to handle. These kinds of situations are much more nuanced than a cavalier comment about how Christ covers everyone can address. And when I say that I also say that with emphasis to myself, because I used to rest on that: "Oh, Jesus takes care of the lilies of the field, so he'll take care of her and her and her, which means I don't have to." I've been taking note of what you pay attention to and what you don't, and in this instance you just seem to be poking the stick in the fire and/or pouring water on it rather than taking note of the fact that the matter at hand involves an intention to cook substantive meals that will actually feed people.
I remain in a state of wonder as far as what
your intentions are here, Mr. Communication. It appears to me that you're asking for and coming close to demanding that you receive an ongoing warm welcome, while you poke that stick and pour on that water. Someone says something uncomfortable to you, and you come back with evasion (you're asked to provide scriptural backing for covering being simply a matter of salvation, but instead of doing so you deflect and ask if anyone gave me scriptural backing for what I was previously seeking), make veiled challenges, and, when you're challenged for your challenges, run behind the skirt of
we may have disagreements and it might be helpful to understand each other with a spirit of generosity so we can together respond to the grace of God.
We all want to be saints, but I find it difficult to extend that effort to someone who seems to be expecting sainthood from us but also expects us to take him at face value rather than wonder if he's a wolf in sheep's clothing.
[Note to moderators: this was carefully crafted to avoid being censored; if I failed in my mission, I guess I'll make another stab at it, once again.]
). Shalom
