Women who refuse to wear headcoverings at monasteries ...

[yeshuaisiam]

Hair makes me hot. oh yeeeaaah.

yeah that deep rooted hair.

brown hair...red hair...curly...mmmhmm bow chika wow wow

I know what you guys are saying is sarcasm.... but let me explain something (hard to explain from a 'worldly' point of view).

My wife, daughter, all of my wifes relatives, people in and near my community all cover and dress modestly & plain (mennonite).   Here is an example:


I did not grow up or live like this forever.  I was in world orthodoxy most of my life.

Let me tell you something brothers.....

I can't even explain it other than saying you have no clue "how pornographic" the "outer world" seems, when you are surrounded by women dressed as this.  I never realized how much I sinned.  Our God was not kidding when he talked the plank (at least in my case).

Yes even when I see hair on females, I have to keep myself in check.  I realized that I had always noticed, but never thought anything of just "hair".  Now that I am aware after being "unplugged" for a while from a lot of the worldly ways, I can totally see how exposed hair can be revealing.

If it was not revealing, consider, why so many women spend $$$$ on hair products, shine, enhancers, coloring, etc etc etc... (and whatever that horrendous smelling stuff they use in salons)

A Christian sister should reserve her GLORY for her husband or future husband.  

She should not even help in the smallest way to lead a brother into temptation.

I heavily respect a woman who has the courage to help not make me fall even for the slightest glance.  If women care for the well being of the brothers in their churches, they should be very modest and cover their heads.

Now I'll go a bit more extreme:
1) It's hard to fall into lust when a woman is wearing a head covering.
2) It's hard to fall to lust when a woman's "curves" are not shown through tight clothing.
3) When dressed plainly, sisters of a church will never compete in garments, shoes, etc.
4) When not wearing costly array, the competition ends.

Anyway, I believe that the EO should take examples from their history and their nuns.

Head coverings are historical all through EO history (except recent).
Head coverings are traditional.
Head coverings are scriptural.
Head coverings are depicted by the Theotokos in icons.
Head coverings are depicted on women in 99.9% of icons (by personal observation).  (I've seen 4 examples (probably schlock) in tens of thousands of icons I've seen where head coverings on women were not used)

The hair of a woman is her glory, and through modesty standards many women feels it reserves it for her husband.  This is another reason many women cover.

Women were commanded in 1 Corinthians 11 to cover their heads while praying (and this was a practice of all the Jews & Christians) and in Thessolonians it was commanded to "pray without ceasing".

In my opinion, to argue these commands, history, traditions (of almost every Christian group that extends 200+ years), and the scriptures - are just people simply not wanting to do what they should.   Responses are often hostile by those who want to distort the scriptures, history, and traditions of Christianity.

Says the guy who jettisons what he doesn't like about a living tradition while he chases the dragon of "authenticity."

Where I'm from, that's called hypocrisy.

I don't know why you quoted both segments, but he proved my point.  He attacks me personally with hostility, rather than seeing the the facts.

I just shrug and go on.    Can't even respond to it.

[JamesR]

He is right...you guys kind of do resort to ad hominems against yeshiasiam whenever he says something against the grain opposed to refuting his arguments, kinda like when older folks won't respond to me logically but just fall back on "I'm older and have more experience."

[Shiny]

"I'm older and have more experience."

Yeah the age card is a non-starter.

[biro]

He is right...you guys kind of do resort to ad hominems against yeshiasiam whenever he says something against the grain opposed to refuting his arguments, kinda like when older folks won't respond to me logically but just fall back on "I'm older and have more experience."

No, he's not. Read some of his older threads, and the earlier posts in this thread.

By definition, older people do have more experience.

No one made ad hominems. He just can't stand that not everyone agrees with his pet broken-record rant.

[Alveus Lacuna]

What if the men were required to wear the type of clothing that men wore in Jesus's time?  After all it can be a real distraction for women to see the outlines of men's legs when they wear pants (we would see so much less if they dressed as men did in NT times).  How many of you men would be willing to do that?  After all, monks don't go to church in pants and a shirt (those might be under their cassock, but their cassock is on top).

I think all of us men on here would really get stimulated at the possibility of wearing special old-world pastimes clothing options at church. I could imagine myself in Holy Russia, the Bible times, etc. What a privilege and an exhilarating experience. I think I would like to go for that Greek look from 200 years ago with the mustache and cylindrical hat, mixed with some kind of velvet tunic and slippers. Remembering life before these dark times.

[yeshuaisiam]

The blondish one to the far right is very beautiful; think she would be interested in me? 

That was on a missionary/charity trip with a Mennonite congregation to Honduras.  There is an orphanage there for the children.  Adoptions are pretty easy.  The photo was picked up for a few Mennonite stories around the world (not my photo either just used for example).  She is from a sister church and I do know the family.  I think (not positive she's about 17 now).  Heh, it's old school brother James... Probably Courting candles, etc... Probably parental approval needed to court.     But she may, can't speak for her.  (I have the matchmaker song from fiddler on the roof in my head now)    

[Shiny]

By definition, older people do have more experience.

So what?

[JamesR]

What if the men were required to wear the type of clothing that men wore in Jesus's time?  After all it can be a real distraction for women to see the outlines of men's legs when they wear pants (we would see so much less if they dressed as men did in NT times).  How many of you men would be willing to do that?  After all, monks don't go to church in pants and a shirt (those might be under their cassock, but their cassock is on top).

I think all of us men on here would really get stimulated at the possibility of wearing special old-world pastimes clothing options at church. I could imagine myself in Holy Russia, the Bible times, etc. What a privilege and an exhilarating experience. I think I would like to go for that Greek look from 200 years ago with the mustache and cylindrical hat, mixed with some kind of velvet tunic and slippers. Remembering life before these dark times.

On the downside though, that would be MUCH more expensive for parishioners than a headcovering. The former would require us to purchase an entire new wardrobe, whereas the latter you only have to purchase one scarf. How would less fortunate parishioners be able to afford the new clothing? I'd love to come dressed like an Aztec or in some ancient Central American apparel, but I doubt I could afford it.

[Shiny]

What if the men were required to wear the type of clothing that men wore in Jesus's time?  After all it can be a real distraction for women to see the outlines of men's legs when they wear pants (we would see so much less if they dressed as men did in NT times).  How many of you men would be willing to do that?  After all, monks don't go to church in pants and a shirt (those might be under their cassock, but their cassock is on top).

I think all of us men on here would really get stimulated at the possibility of wearing special old-world pastimes clothing options at church. I could imagine myself in Holy Russia, the Bible times, etc. What a privilege and an exhilarating experience. I think I would like to go for that Greek look from 200 years ago with the mustache and cylindrical hat, mixed with some kind of velvet tunic and slippers. Remembering life before these dark times.

LOL!!!!

[yeshuaisiam]

He is right...you guys kind of do resort to ad hominems against yeshiasiam whenever he says something against the grain opposed to refuting his arguments, kinda like when older folks won't respond to me logically but just fall back on "I'm older and have more experience."

No, he's not. Read some of his older threads, and the earlier posts in this thread.

By definition, older people do have more experience.

No one made ad hominems. He just can't stand that not everyone agrees with his pet broken-record rant.

Biro,

Today I mucked out 3 barns, dealt with a split stall water pipe, refilled the near house firewood storage, on top of regular chores.  Then I had to work my normal job today.  Plus I'm raising 5 children with my wife all in the mix.  The fact that everybody does not agree with me on a web forum, does not keep me up for one single minute at night.  "can't stand it" is very - very strong words.   I get time on this forum while compiling custom kernels for servers and performing backups for others online.

I'm sorry if my "rant" is has been accepted as a broken record.  Just understand that I was in the Eastern Orthodox church longer than many on this forum have been alive.   So if you respect experience with years & age...

Know I was immensely hurt by events after all that experience in Orthodoxy on something I for so long thought I knew was correct and rock solid.   I'm not saying that the church is not rock solid or correct, I'm saying that it made me know for a fact there are several craters in that rock, some I believe are deeper than others.  If I point these out, I make what seems to be "enemies" quick.

So back to the point, so after approximately 1960 years of the Eastern Orthodox following the scriptures of women wearing their heads covered, why is it important to argue they should not?  Why is this "rock solid" church allowing women to disobey the scriptures AND tradition of the faith itself?

Don't let it upset you, it's just questions, not blind accusations.  They are DOING IT and many EO are against it.

[PeterTheAleut]

He is right...you guys kind of do resort to ad hominems against yeshiasiam whenever he says something against the grain opposed to refuting his arguments, kinda like when older folks won't respond to me logically but just fall back on "I'm older and have more experience."

Not all ad hominem arguments (according to the definition given them by the rules of formal logic) are logical fallacies. In this case, the fact that yeshuaisiam picks and chooses what elements of the Christian faith he wishes to adopt in his pursuit of "authenticity" has everything to do with the message he has been posting on these head covering threads. His hypocrisy makes his words hollow and devoid of any real authority. (BTW, according to the rules of formal logic, what I just said is NOT an ad hominem, in that I'm saying his words are invalidated by what he does, not by whom he is.)

[OrthoNoob]

...I'm saying his words are invalidated by what he does, not by whom he is.)

And the pendulum swings the other way.

Who/whom is doomed.

[JamesR]

Not all ad hominem arguments (according to the definition given them by the rules of formal logic) are logical fallacies.

Yes they are; the validity and logical truth of a statement has nothing to do with how you personally conduct yourself, unless of course the statement is a fact about yourself, in which case, it can be refuted by an ad hominem. But in this case, that is not so. Whether or not yeshuasiam "picks and chooses" has nothing to do with whether or not he is correct or incorrect in this instance on his stance about headcoverings.

In this case, the fact that yeshuaisiam picks and chooses what elements of the Christian faith he wishes to adopt in his pursuit of "authenticity" has everything to do with the message he has been posting on these head covering threads.

I don't see how

His hypocrisy makes his words hollow and devoid of any real authority.

No they don't; his words become hollow and devoid of any real authority when they have logically been proven wrong, his "hypocrisy" says nothing about whether or not his words are true.

[William]

Their monastery, their rules. That's really what it comes down it; if the Abbot requires that female visitors wear headcoverings, then what's the problem? If she doesn't want to wear one then she doesn't have to visit the monastery. That'd be like me visiting your house naked and refusing to put clothing on, even when you've offered me a fine robe.

The monastery is akin to an intensive care unit while the church is like a general hospital for all sinners.  There are rules for visiting an intensive care unit like wearing a mask and gown.  No dispute there.

When you go to the hospital, you receive the treatment you need.  I can't be refused treatment if I show up wearing a baseball cap.

Except a monastery is not an ICU. It is a monastery.

[PeterTheAleut]

Not all ad hominem arguments (according to the definition given them by the rules of formal logic) are logical fallacies.

Yes they are; the validity and logical truth of a statement has nothing to do with how you personally conduct yourself, unless of course the statement is a fact about yourself, in which case, it can be refuted by an ad hominem.

So you contradict yourself. You can't say that all ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies and then give examples of how some are not. Your inconsistency only shows how you agree with me.

But in this case, that is not so. Whether or not yeshuasiam "picks and chooses" has nothing to do with whether or not he is correct or incorrect in this instance on his stance about headcoverings.

But that's not what I'm saying, James. It isn't about whether what yeshuaisiam says is true or not. It's about his moral authority to say what he does.

In this case, the fact that yeshuaisiam picks and chooses what elements of the Christian faith he wishes to adopt in his pursuit of "authenticity" has everything to do with the message he has been posting on these head covering threads.

I don't see how

Doesn't matter what you see or don't see, at least not on this matter. yeshuaisiam puts himself forward as an authority on biblical truth, yet what he recognizes and preaches as biblical truth is an amalgamation of his own opinions, drawn from his picking and choosing what he likes from a variety of Orthodox and heterodox Christian traditions, rather than the unadulterated authority of the Orthodox Church. I am therefore not going to grant any credence to what yeshuaisiam has to say about head coverings, since he is not an authority on things Orthodox.

His hypocrisy makes his words hollow and devoid of any real authority.

No they don't; his words become hollow and devoid of any real authority when they have logically been proven wrong, his "hypocrisy" says nothing about whether or not his words are true.

The authority of his words is not dependent on their truth. There's no logical way to prove or refute his assertion that the wearing of head coverings is part of Holy Tradition, because there's no logical way to prove that Holy Tradition is true. There's no logical way to prove that Holy Tradition is true, because the Lord and Truth of Tradition transcends all logic. All we have, then, is yeshuaisiam's moral authority to preach what he does. Others from within our Orthodox faith may have that authority, but yeshuaisiam has not, because what authority he once had as an Orthodox Christian has been nullified by his fall into heresy and hypocrisy.

You see, James, Christianity is all about appeal to authority. The question is: To which authority are you going to listen?

[Justin Kissel]

Their monastery, their rules. That's really what it comes down it; if the Abbot requires that female visitors wear headcoverings, then what's the problem? If she doesn't want to wear one then she doesn't have to visit the monastery. That'd be like me visiting your house naked and refusing to put clothing on, even when you've offered me a fine robe.

The monastery is akin to an intensive care unit while the church is like a general hospital for all sinners.  There are rules for visiting an intensive care unit like wearing a mask and gown.  No dispute there.

When you go to the hospital, you receive the treatment you need.  I can't be refused treatment if I show up wearing a baseball cap.

Except a monastery is not an ICU. It is a monastery.

Why can't it be both?

[William]

Their monastery, their rules. That's really what it comes down it; if the Abbot requires that female visitors wear headcoverings, then what's the problem? If she doesn't want to wear one then she doesn't have to visit the monastery. That'd be like me visiting your house naked and refusing to put clothing on, even when you've offered me a fine robe.

The monastery is akin to an intensive care unit while the church is like a general hospital for all sinners.  There are rules for visiting an intensive care unit like wearing a mask and gown.  No dispute there.

When you go to the hospital, you receive the treatment you need.  I can't be refused treatment if I show up wearing a baseball cap.

Except a monastery is not an ICU. It is a monastery.

Why can't it be both?

Better yet, why would it be?

[Quinault]

The position of our priest is that ideally women would wear headcoverings. But, no one is required/expected to in our parish. In fact; our Khouria does not wear a headcovering (although their eldest daughter that is also a Khouria does whenever she visits) Our Khouria wasn't allowed in a certain parish to venerate a saint's relics unless she wore a borrowed wrap skirt. She didn't get all high and mighty about it. On the other hand it is a simple issue of etiquette to wear a headcovering at a monastery. I don't think asking that a woman wear a long skirt is overly oppressive either. Similarly men are not allowed to wear hats or shorts in the Nave either. It isn't about feminism, and anyone that thinks that putting a scarf on their head when they visit a monastery is overly oppressive has chosen the wrong faith  

Now...when it comes to facial piercings I can't say much. I have a 10 gauge septum ring, and no I don't take it out when I go to church, nor have I been asked/required to. I couldn't even if I wanted to since it takes a special tool to remove it that I do not own.

My daughter thinks it is cool enough she tried to pretend she had one too!

[Justin Kissel]

Their monastery, their rules. That's really what it comes down it; if the Abbot requires that female visitors wear headcoverings, then what's the problem? If she doesn't want to wear one then she doesn't have to visit the monastery. That'd be like me visiting your house naked and refusing to put clothing on, even when you've offered me a fine robe.

The monastery is akin to an intensive care unit while the church is like a general hospital for all sinners.  There are rules for visiting an intensive care unit like wearing a mask and gown.  No dispute there.

When you go to the hospital, you receive the treatment you need.  I can't be refused treatment if I show up wearing a baseball cap.

Except a monastery is not an ICU. It is a monastery.

Why can't it be both?

Better yet, why would it be?

Do you understand the purpose of an ICU? Do you understand the purpose of a monastery (for monks or for lay people visiting)? Do you see any similarities?  I think they have a same purpose. And since I don't draw a sharp distinction between physical and spiritual, I can see them as being even closer in purpose. Health, it's all about health.

[Quinault]

An ICU is a bad analogy. If you go to the ICU they do in fact take away your clothing/possessions and put you in appropriate clothing You get this cool plastic bag to put everything in.

[Arachne]

I can't even explain it other than saying you have no clue "how pornographic" the "outer world" seems, when you are surrounded by women dressed as this.  I never realized how much I sinned.  Our God was not kidding when he talked the plank (at least in my case).

Yes even when I see hair on females, I have to keep myself in check.  I realized that I had always noticed, but never thought anything of just "hair".  Now that I am aware after being "unplugged" for a while from a lot of the worldly ways, I can totally see how exposed hair can be revealing.

If you spent some time in, say, Iran, would you consider anyone who doesn't wear a burqa immodest?

[Deep Roots]

What if the men were required to wear the type of clothing that men wore in Jesus's time?  After all it can be a real distraction for women to see the outlines of men's legs when they wear pants (we would see so much less if they dressed as men did in NT times).  How many of you men would be willing to do that?  After all, monks don't go to church in pants and a shirt (those might be under their cassock, but their cassock is on top).

I think all of us men on here would really get stimulated at the possibility of wearing special old-world pastimes clothing options at church. I could imagine myself in Holy Russia, the Bible times, etc. What a privilege and an exhilarating experience. I think I would like to go for that Greek look from 200 years ago with the mustache and cylindrical hat, mixed with some kind of velvet tunic and slippers. Remembering life before these dark times.

LARP

[LizaSymonenko]

Wow.  Really?  We are arguing about head-coverings?  Must be a slow day....

I see it this way....

As Christians we are to be humble and submissive to our "elders"....

So, if I go to a monastery and they "expect" women to cover their heads....then by all means, I will cover my head.   After all, I CHOSE to go there, they didn't kidnap me. 

If my bishop or pastor instructed me to cover my head, or say my prayers a hundred times, or fast for three days, or not do this or that, or do this or that....or whatever it was.....(as long as it met with Church rules)....I would be obligated to do so.

It's not MY choice.  As a Christian, I humbly should do what I am told to do.  Orthodoxy does not support egotism, or my way or the highway thinking.  It's not about "me".  I have to give up my pride, my ego, my thinking that I am always right, that things must be done the way I want them, etc.....or truly, I am a Christian in name only.

If you cannot succumb to Church authority....then it's useless.  It's pride.....and pride even brought down God's most favored angel of light. 

What we are talking about here, is NOT HEADCOVERINGS....but, PRIDE.

It's not "our" will that is important here....we need to realize that.

Covering our heads is not that big a deal.  If I were told to do so, I would.

At my parish, some do, some don't.....the pastor states it's not that important and our salvation doesn't hinge on it....however, if my bishop or pastor stated Sunday morning that we are to cover....fine.  I would cover. 

I don't come to church to express my individuality.

I come to church to worship my Creator, along with my fellow Christians.  It's not about me.

[Cantor Krishnich]

I can't even explain it other than saying you have no clue "how pornographic" the "outer world" seems, when you are surrounded by women dressed as this.  I never realized how much I sinned.  Our God was not kidding when he talked the plank (at least in my case).

Yes even when I see hair on females, I have to keep myself in check.  I realized that I had always noticed, but never thought anything of just "hair".  Now that I am aware after being "unplugged" for a while from a lot of the worldly ways, I can totally see how exposed hair can be revealing.

If you spent some time in, say, Iran, would you consider anyone who doesn't wear a burqa immodest?

The burqa (full covering) is not required in most of Iran and its not a requirement by Shari'ah law. In fact, according to the pictures we see from Iran, the women usually wear a very revealing hijab and maintain a very cosmopolitan look. The Christian headcovering is about more than just modesty.

[Cantor Krishnich]

The Christian headcovering is about more than just modesty. I've heard from some wearers say that it gives them a feeling of submission to God. It is an ancient practice that the Church has inherited from Ancient Judaism so, in away, not wearing one during prayer would be exhibiting non-Christian behavior. It is commanded in the scriptures. It is a very beautiful practice for those who choose to wear the veil full-time, but for those who dont, it beautifully separates what is holy from what is worldly. Yes modesty is an important part of the headcovering but theres a little more to it than just modesty. 

[Arachne]

I can't even explain it other than saying you have no clue "how pornographic" the "outer world" seems, when you are surrounded by women dressed as this.  I never realized how much I sinned.  Our God was not kidding when he talked the plank (at least in my case).

Yes even when I see hair on females, I have to keep myself in check.  I realized that I had always noticed, but never thought anything of just "hair".  Now that I am aware after being "unplugged" for a while from a lot of the worldly ways, I can totally see how exposed hair can be revealing.

If you spent some time in, say, Iran, would you consider anyone who doesn't wear a burqa immodest?

The burqa (full covering) is not required in most of Iran and its not a requirement by Shari'ah law. In fact, according to the pictures we see from Iran, the women usually wear a very revealing hijab and maintain a very cosmopolitan look. The Christian headcovering is about more than just modesty.

Nice try derailing the point. Afghanistan, then. Or any area where a niqab (face veil) is customary. Are we to suppose that a man who spends some time among women in full coverage will then be distracted and tempted by the sight of a bit of ankle or forearm?

I honestly believe that any man who answers 'yes' to the above has bigger problems of his own to deal with than the modesty levels of his surrounding womenfolk.

[Cantor Krishnich]

I can't even explain it other than saying you have no clue "how pornographic" the "outer world" seems, when you are surrounded by women dressed as this.  I never realized how much I sinned.  Our God was not kidding when he talked the plank (at least in my case).

Yes even when I see hair on females, I have to keep myself in check.  I realized that I had always noticed, but never thought anything of just "hair".  Now that I am aware after being "unplugged" for a while from a lot of the worldly ways, I can totally see how exposed hair can be revealing.

If you spent some time in, say, Iran, would you consider anyone who doesn't wear a burqa immodest?

The burqa (full covering) is not required in most of Iran and its not a requirement by Shari'ah law. In fact, according to the pictures we see from Iran, the women usually wear a very revealing hijab and maintain a very cosmopolitan look. The Christian headcovering is about more than just modesty.

Nice try derailing the point. Afghanistan, then. Or any area where a niqab (face veil) is customary. Are we to suppose that a man who spends some time among women in full coverage will then be distracted and tempted by the sight of a bit of ankle or forearm?

I honestly believe that any man who answers 'yes' to the above has bigger problems of his own to deal with than the modesty levels of his surrounding womenfolk.

I wasn't trying to derail the point. Actually, in a way, I was agreeing with you a little. I think overall, women should dress modestly and a headcovering should at least be worn during prayer or at church. Historically, the long flowing hairs of a woman are viewed as something beautiful and feminine are were/are to be covered as her body should be. In Christian practice, women cover their hair not only for modesty but also because it is sacred tradition and scriptural, I think that many people have forgotten this and that could be a big reason for this argument. Originally, Islam inherited the veil from Christianity for the sake of sacred tradition passed from Christianity and because of the immoral behavior that was going on. As time progressed, some people started demanding that women wear the burqa because of their own inability to control their lust. Ironically, I find the burqa to be mysteriously attractive....I'm sure that I'm not the only one. The headcovering, should be worn by Christian women not only because of modesty but because of its connection to that which is holy.     

[Arachne]

I can't even explain it other than saying you have no clue "how pornographic" the "outer world" seems, when you are surrounded by women dressed as this.  I never realized how much I sinned.  Our God was not kidding when he talked the plank (at least in my case).

Yes even when I see hair on females, I have to keep myself in check.  I realized that I had always noticed, but never thought anything of just "hair".  Now that I am aware after being "unplugged" for a while from a lot of the worldly ways, I can totally see how exposed hair can be revealing.

If you spent some time in, say, Iran, would you consider anyone who doesn't wear a burqa immodest?

The burqa (full covering) is not required in most of Iran and its not a requirement by Shari'ah law. In fact, according to the pictures we see from Iran, the women usually wear a very revealing hijab and maintain a very cosmopolitan look. The Christian headcovering is about more than just modesty.

Nice try derailing the point. Afghanistan, then. Or any area where a niqab (face veil) is customary. Are we to suppose that a man who spends some time among women in full coverage will then be distracted and tempted by the sight of a bit of ankle or forearm?

I honestly believe that any man who answers 'yes' to the above has bigger problems of his own to deal with than the modesty levels of his surrounding womenfolk.

I wasn't trying to derail the point. Actually, in a way, I was agreeing with you a little. I think overall, women should dress modestly and a headcovering should at least be worn during prayer or at church. Historically, the long flowing hairs of a woman are viewed as something beautiful and feminine are were/are to be covered as her body should be. In Christian practice, women cover their hair not only for modesty but also because it is sacred tradition and scriptural, I think that many people have forgotten this and that could be a big reason for this argument. Originally, Islam inherited the veil from Christianity for the sake of sacred tradition passed from Christianity and because of the immoral behavior that was going on. As time progressed, some people started demanding that women wear the burqa because of their own inability to control their lust. Ironically, I find the burqa to be mysteriously attractive....I'm sure that I'm not the only one. The headcovering, should be worn by Christian women not only because of modesty but because of its connection to that which is holy.

I'm not really arguing with that. If I'm directed to wear a veil, I will. If it's left up to me, I probably won't. All the effort fashionable ladies put into their hairdos has nothing on the effort I'd have to put into confining my hair under a scarf.

From wearers' accounts, a burqa is apparently the single most uncomfortable garment one can wear. A salwar kameez, on the other hand, is another beast entirely.

[Cantor Krishnich]

I can't even explain it other than saying you have no clue "how pornographic" the "outer world" seems, when you are surrounded by women dressed as this.  I never realized how much I sinned.  Our God was not kidding when he talked the plank (at least in my case).

Yes even when I see hair on females, I have to keep myself in check.  I realized that I had always noticed, but never thought anything of just "hair".  Now that I am aware after being "unplugged" for a while from a lot of the worldly ways, I can totally see how exposed hair can be revealing.

If you spent some time in, say, Iran, would you consider anyone who doesn't wear a burqa immodest?

The burqa (full covering) is not required in most of Iran and its not a requirement by Shari'ah law. In fact, according to the pictures we see from Iran, the women usually wear a very revealing hijab and maintain a very cosmopolitan look. The Christian headcovering is about more than just modesty.

Nice try derailing the point. Afghanistan, then. Or any area where a niqab (face veil) is customary. Are we to suppose that a man who spends some time among women in full coverage will then be distracted and tempted by the sight of a bit of ankle or forearm?

I honestly believe that any man who answers 'yes' to the above has bigger problems of his own to deal with than the modesty levels of his surrounding womenfolk.

I wasn't trying to derail the point. Actually, in a way, I was agreeing with you a little. I think overall, women should dress modestly and a headcovering should at least be worn during prayer or at church. Historically, the long flowing hairs of a woman are viewed as something beautiful and feminine are were/are to be covered as her body should be. In Christian practice, women cover their hair not only for modesty but also because it is sacred tradition and scriptural, I think that many people have forgotten this and that could be a big reason for this argument. Originally, Islam inherited the veil from Christianity for the sake of sacred tradition passed from Christianity and because of the immoral behavior that was going on. As time progressed, some people started demanding that women wear the burqa because of their own inability to control their lust. Ironically, I find the burqa to be mysteriously attractive....I'm sure that I'm not the only one. The headcovering, should be worn by Christian women not only because of modesty but because of its connection to that which is holy.

I'm not really arguing with that. If I'm directed to wear a veil, I will. If it's left up to me, I probably won't. All the effort fashionable ladies put into their hairdos has nothing on the effort I'd have to put into confining my hair under a scarf.

From wearers' accounts, a burqa is apparently the single most uncomfortable garment one can wear. A salwar kameez, on the other hand, is another beast entirely.

In my culture, both men and women wear salwar kameez. Its comfort ability depends on how ornate it is. From my experience, the salwar (pants) are so comfortable that many people them as pajamas.   

[OrthoNoob]

Wow.  Really?  We are arguing about head-coverings?  Must be a slow day....

I see it this way....

As Christians we are to be humble and submissive to our "elders"....

So, if I go to a monastery and they "expect" women to cover their heads....then by all means, I will cover my head.   After all, I CHOSE to go there, they didn't kidnap me. 

If my bishop or pastor instructed me to cover my head, or say my prayers a hundred times, or fast for three days, or not do this or that, or do this or that....or whatever it was.....(as long as it met with Church rules)....I would be obligated to do so.

It's not MY choice.  As a Christian, I humbly should do what I am told to do.  Orthodoxy does not support egotism, or my way or the highway thinking.  It's not about "me".  I have to give up my pride, my ego, my thinking that I am always right, that things must be done the way I want them, etc.....or truly, I am a Christian in name only.

If you cannot succumb to Church authority....then it's useless.  It's pride.....and pride even brought down God's most favored angel of light. 

What we are talking about here, is NOT HEADCOVERINGS....but, PRIDE.

It's not "our" will that is important here....we need to realize that.

Covering our heads is not that big a deal.  If I were told to do so, I would.

At my parish, some do, some don't.....the pastor states it's not that important and our salvation doesn't hinge on it....however, if my bishop or pastor stated Sunday morning that we are to cover....fine.  I would cover. 

I don't come to church to express my individuality.

I come to church to worship my Creator, along with my fellow Christians.  It's not about me.

At last. Sanity. Thank you. So. Much.

[William]

Their monastery, their rules. That's really what it comes down it; if the Abbot requires that female visitors wear headcoverings, then what's the problem? If she doesn't want to wear one then she doesn't have to visit the monastery. That'd be like me visiting your house naked and refusing to put clothing on, even when you've offered me a fine robe.

The monastery is akin to an intensive care unit while the church is like a general hospital for all sinners.  There are rules for visiting an intensive care unit like wearing a mask and gown.  No dispute there.

When you go to the hospital, you receive the treatment you need.  I can't be refused treatment if I show up wearing a baseball cap.

Except a monastery is not an ICU. It is a monastery.

Why can't it be both?

Better yet, why would it be?

Do you understand the purpose of an ICU? Do you understand the purpose of a monastery (for monks or for lay people visiting)? Do you see any similarities?  I think they have a same purpose. And since I don't draw a sharp distinction between physical and spiritual, I can see them as being even closer in purpose. Health, it's all about health.

And analogies have their limits.

I am not required to help produce crafts when staying at an ICU. Why should the monastery require such a thing? Etc.

[SolEX01]

Their monastery, their rules. That's really what it comes down it; if the Abbot requires that female visitors wear headcoverings, then what's the problem? If she doesn't want to wear one then she doesn't have to visit the monastery. That'd be like me visiting your house naked and refusing to put clothing on, even when you've offered me a fine robe.

The monastery is akin to an intensive care unit while the church is like a general hospital for all sinners.  There are rules for visiting an intensive care unit like wearing a mask and gown.  No dispute there.

When you go to the hospital, you receive the treatment you need.  I can't be refused treatment if I show up wearing a baseball cap.

Except a monastery is not an ICU. It is a monastery.

Why can't it be both?

Better yet, why would it be?

Do you understand the purpose of an ICU? Do you understand the purpose of a monastery (for monks or for lay people visiting)? Do you see any similarities?  I think they have a same purpose. And since I don't draw a sharp distinction between physical and spiritual, I can see them as being even closer in purpose. Health, it's all about health.

And analogies have their limits.

Care to clarify?

I am not required to help produce crafts when staying at an ICU. Why should the monastery require such a thing? Etc.

You miss the point.

[Punch]

What is with this fetishizing over headcoverings.

Sheeeesh

The purple demons came out early for Lent - especially the equating of headcoverings with the Theotokos.  If you don't agree, you're a feminist.

Or a Godless Greek . . .

Serbs, ROCOR and the Old Calendarist groups believe in headcoverings and God and everyone else is Godless?

Sorry if my well known tendency toward satire escaped your limited ability to understand it.  But if you really must know, I do not think very highly of NC innovators.  The NC was only the first push off the slippery slope.  I personally believe that they will not feel their mission is complete until we are all holding hands and singing praises to the Antichrist.  And I am pretty sure the Greeks will be the first to apostatize, although the Antiochians will give them a good run for the money.  But that being said, I really do not believe that they are Godless . . .yet.

[Punch]

So, it's all just whining to you.

I take it you're not a fan of that "reading the post thoroughly" business.

Whom are you talking to?

OrthoNoob. He made a reference to 'whining,' and I wanted to say I and some other posters took it more seriously than that.

Examples? Or better yet, just answer my question about what the harm would be if (gasp) you all had to cover your heads?

The opposite rule prevails for men, and I've never heard of any kind of backlash. We're simply not concerned with it. Why are you?

Because it's asking me to do something, and if I don't think it's justified, who are you to make me?

Just as I thought. "I wanna wear what I wanna wear."

And I'm no one to make you. And I don't make you. But if a parish wants to make you...it can (they usually don't, but they can). And certainly a monastery can. I am not seeing why this is a big deal.

Ye gods, what a first world problem.

What if the men were required to wear the type of clothing that men wore in Jesus's time?  After all it can be a real distraction for women to see the outlines of men's legs when they wear pants (we would see so much less if they dressed as men did in NT times).  How many of you men would be willing to do that?  After all, monks don't go to church in pants and a shirt (those might be under their cassock, but their cassock is on top). 

I would find that to be wonderful.  I often wish that I would not be out of place wearing the clothing of that time.  I actually wear my cassock whenever I can.

[Punch]

He is right...you guys kind of do resort to ad hominems against yeshiasiam whenever he says something against the grain opposed to refuting his arguments, kinda like when older folks won't respond to me logically but just fall back on "I'm older and have more experience."

No, he's not. Read some of his older threads, and the earlier posts in this thread.

By definition, older people do have more experience.

No one made ad hominems. He just can't stand that not everyone agrees with his pet broken-record rant.

Yes, but I have found that young idiots tend to grow up to be old idiots, so I do not put too much stock in age. 

[Maria]

Wow.  Really?  We are arguing about head-coverings?  Must be a slow day....

I see it this way....

As Christians we are to be humble and submissive to our "elders"....

So, if I go to a monastery and they "expect" women to cover their heads....then by all means, I will cover my head.   After all, I CHOSE to go there, they didn't kidnap me. 

If my bishop or pastor instructed me to cover my head, or say my prayers a hundred times, or fast for three days, or not do this or that, or do this or that....or whatever it was.....(as long as it met with Church rules)....I would be obligated to do so.

It's not MY choice.  As a Christian, I humbly should do what I am told to do.  Orthodoxy does not support egotism, or my way or the highway thinking.  It's not about "me".  I have to give up my pride, my ego, my thinking that I am always right, that things must be done the way I want them, etc.....or truly, I am a Christian in name only.

If you cannot succumb to Church authority....then it's useless.  It's pride.....and pride even brought down God's most favored angel of light. 

What we are talking about here, is NOT HEADCOVERINGS....but, PRIDE.

It's not "our" will that is important here....we need to realize that.

Covering our heads is not that big a deal.  If I were told to do so, I would.

At my parish, some do, some don't.....the pastor states it's not that important and our salvation doesn't hinge on it....however, if my bishop or pastor stated Sunday morning that we are to cover....fine.  I would cover. 

I don't come to church to express my individuality.

I come to church to worship my Creator, along with my fellow Christians.  It's not about me.

Orthodox (right thinking) Post of the Month

[Maria]

The Christian headcovering is about more than just modesty. I've heard from some wearers say that it gives them a feeling of submission to God. It is an ancient practice that the Church has inherited from Ancient Judaism so, in away, not wearing one during prayer would be exhibiting non-Christian behavior. It is commanded in the scriptures. It is a very beautiful practice for those who choose to wear the veil full-time, but for those who dont, it beautifully separates what is holy from what is worldly. Yes modesty is an important part of the headcovering but theres a little more to it than just modesty. 

Another beautiful insight. Thanks.

[SolEX01]

What is with this fetishizing over headcoverings.

Sheeeesh

The purple demons came out early for Lent - especially the equating of headcoverings with the Theotokos.  If you don't agree, you're a feminist.

Or a Godless Greek . . .

Serbs, ROCOR and the Old Calendarist groups believe in headcoverings and God and everyone else is Godless?

Sorry if my well known tendency toward satire escaped your limited ability to understand it.

What you said wasn't satire.

But if you really must know, I do not think very highly of NC innovators.  The NC was only the first push off the slippery slope.  I personally believe that they will not feel their mission is complete until we are all holding hands and singing praises to the Antichrist.  And I am pretty sure the Greeks will be the first to apostatize, although the Antiochians will give them a good run for the money.  But that being said, I really do not believe that they are Godless . . .yet.

It's been 90 years since the New Calendar was adopted.  It took 1,021 for the Great Schism to take place.     The Internet has accelerated the spread of information and the massive schism of the Orthodox may occur in this lifetime.

[PeterTheAleut]

What is with this fetishizing over headcoverings.

Sheeeesh

The purple demons came out early for Lent - especially the equating of headcoverings with the Theotokos.  If you don't agree, you're a feminist.

Or a Godless Greek . . .

Serbs, ROCOR and the Old Calendarist groups believe in headcoverings and God and everyone else is Godless?

Sorry if my well known tendency toward satire escaped your limited ability to understand it.

What you said wasn't satire.

So you're able to override what Punch said about himself and tell him what he was thinking? Or is your inability to grasp that he was using satire testament to his mastery of the art?

[SolEX01]

What is with this fetishizing over headcoverings.

Sheeeesh

The purple demons came out early for Lent - especially the equating of headcoverings with the Theotokos.  If you don't agree, you're a feminist.

Or a Godless Greek . . .

Serbs, ROCOR and the Old Calendarist groups believe in headcoverings and God and everyone else is Godless?

Sorry if my well known tendency toward satire escaped your limited ability to understand it.

What you said wasn't satire.

So you're able to override what Punch said about himself and tell him what he was thinking? Or is your inability to grasp that he was using satire testament to his mastery of the art?

I have a choice?  My opinion is forbidden on this forum.   

[Shanghaiski]

So, it's all just whining to you.

I take it you're not a fan of that "reading the post thoroughly" business.

Whom are you talking to?

OrthoNoob. He made a reference to 'whining,' and I wanted to say I and some other posters took it more seriously than that.

Examples? Or better yet, just answer my question about what the harm would be if (gasp) you all had to cover your heads?

The opposite rule prevails for men, and I've never heard of any kind of backlash. We're simply not concerned with it. Why are you?

Because it's asking me to do something, and if I don't think it's justified, who are you to make me?

Well, OrthoNoob isn't making you. You don't have to go into the monastery or the church. Access is not guaranteed. In ancient times, entrance into the nave was only for the baptized.

Who is God to have made us? Or the Church to ask us to do anything? Why can't we just do whatever we want?

[Shanghaiski]

...I'm saying his words are invalidated by what he does, not by whom he is.)

And the pendulum swings the other way.

Who/whom is doomed.

Can you hear the editors screaming? This will give me nightmares tonight.

[Shanghaiski]

An ICU is a bad analogy. If you go to the ICU they do in fact take away your clothing/possessions and put you in appropriate clothing You get this cool plastic bag to put everything in.

So, monasteries are less picky about things than ICUs. Imagine.

[Shanghaiski]

I can't even explain it other than saying you have no clue "how pornographic" the "outer world" seems, when you are surrounded by women dressed as this.  I never realized how much I sinned.  Our God was not kidding when he talked the plank (at least in my case).

Yes even when I see hair on females, I have to keep myself in check.  I realized that I had always noticed, but never thought anything of just "hair".  Now that I am aware after being "unplugged" for a while from a lot of the worldly ways, I can totally see how exposed hair can be revealing.

If you spent some time in, say, Iran, would you consider anyone who doesn't wear a burqa immodest?

Well, if you see how they look when not wearing a burqa or chador, you'd see the connection with modesty is rather superficial.

[Maria]

An ICU is a bad analogy. If you go to the ICU they do in fact take away your clothing/possessions and put you in appropriate clothing You get this cool plastic bag to put everything in.

So, monasteries are less picky about things than ICUs. Imagine.

Worse, ICUs and hospitals give you that opened-backed hospital gown that only fits half-way around.

Does anyone remember the 1963 song about that hospital gown?

Oh, that open-backed hospital gown.


Not very modest. Plus you only get to wear a headcovering in a hospital if you have a head injury or brain surgery.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: Women who refuse to wear headcoverings at monasteries ...