วีดีโอ

Um where exactly does it say head covering? I mean exactly as you put it together as opposed to separately. I would love to read that.

I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering. The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus. I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long. But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way… Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off. So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15. So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil. So shaving off the hair is not exactly the understanding here.

Hey, thanks for finding my video thought-provoking enough for such a considered response! I'd like to reply to a couple of points you made and things you may have misunderstood about my stance on things. 1) I actually wholeheartedly agree that we should be set apart from the world. In fact, I believe that we should stand out amongst the rest. For a lot of people, their two first assumptions are to think that means we should a) all look like monks or nuns and cover head to toe wearing nothing but plain clothes looking like strange homeschooled kids, or b) dress to the nines all the time as if we are from a decade long gone or attending a formal event. Neither of these actually has to be true. In fact, as you've mentioned, the Western world has become so degenerate that wearing underclothes in public is considered okay. If someone were to dress "normally" all the time, covering their nakedness and dressed appropriately for each occasion, then they would stand out quite a lot already! 2) Yes, I stand by what I said when I mentioned that dressing to go to the beach is going to look differently than dressing to go to church. I think you (and others) are assuming that I mean "different levels" of modesty. Im not sure why? It's a completely different occasion with different purposes and for that reason the way we dress for that occasion and that purpose will look different than when we dress at other times. It was also really interesting to me that you immediately thought I meant it was okay to wear speedos and bikinis to the beach, although I never mentioned anything of the sort. I suppose I could have been more clear about that, although I thought it was pretty common sense. A big point I was trying to make in this video was that dressing modestly includes dressing appropriately for each occasion. Our God is a God of order and design, and therefore, we should try to emulate that! That's why im terribly against wearing yoga pants for anything other than actually working out privately. Im against wearing underwear out in public at any time. That includes "clothing" that covers as much as underwear. It's also why I think going out in pajamas is also immodest. BUT for that same reason, what we wear to the beach is not appropriate to wear to church. Church is of much higher reverence, and we should have higher standards and dress accordingly. 3) Im being pretty vauge about the EXACT thing you should wear to church and using phrases like "high standards" because im trying to be considerate of everyone's situation. Not every girl watching this is going to have a really nice dress for church or the money to buy one. For each individual person, it is okay for them to wear their "Sunday's best," and that may be a little different person to person depending on their situation. 4) No, there really aren't explicit or detailed rules in the Bible about what we need to wear. That's just the truth, and because this is a video about modesty from a christian and biblical perspective, it made sense to mention that fact. That does not mean that we can wear whatever we want. That's why I went on to mention the guidelines that we DO get and understand from the Bible and christian tradition. If I did mean that ,because of this fact, we could wear what we want, then the video would not be more than a minute long and utterly unnecessary. 5) I will always protest against legalism because it is dangerous. The truth is that claiming in the name of God or Christianity that something is a sin according to the Bible, when it is, in fact, not, is a terrible thing to do. I have seen many people leave Christianity because they have witnessed these kinds of lies. It has done more damage than it ever has done good, and it should not be tolerated. Having rules for your church does not equal legalism. I think you have that confused. In the church I was raised in, for example, if you were a young woman in a choir or playing an instrument, you were required to wear a skirt that covered the knees. That's a RULE that my church had, and it's reasonable. However, they did not go around preaching that the Bible says its a sin to wear pants. I hope this can clear a couple of things up! There's always so much to say about these topics, and it's easy to misunderstand people or to misspeak, and I hope that's not what Im doing! God bless x

@@sofialjndr Thank you for taking the time to reply to my comment, I appreciate it! I'd also like to clarify a few things I have said in my previous comment aswell as adding to what we still both disagree on for any people reading the comments. I'm going to reply in a similar format as to your previous comment: (PART 1 of 2) 1) We both agree that we have to be set apart from the world, that is good. Where we seem to still disagree is in the context to which we're to wear specific attire. So, I believe firmly in human tradition, alot of individuals have tradition pertaining to either their religion or culture. So, there are two distinctions here, and I'm going to compare and contrast 2 societies, one that features eroding tradition and one which is striving to preserve it. I'm going to use the United States and Qatar as examples, as these countries and their histories pertaining to how modesty was practiced was not so different at some point in time. So it's no mystery, as I've said, you go back and look at photographs and videos of how Men and Women dressed in the U.S, there was absolutely no man wearing short shorts, no women wearing pants, and no compressed tight clothing, why? Were people striving to show off gains or body parts? No, as I've stated in my previous comment, the attire made at the time had the goal to accentuate Male masculinity and to accentuate Female femineity. In another comment in this video, I described many events that have happened in the 20th century that have eroded the boundaries/distinctions between Men and Women. The Bible talks about and explicitly condemns crossdressing (Deuteronomy 22:5), I didn't see it mentioned in your video and this is a very important point that is "conveniently" left out of videos regarding Male and Female attire. Alot of movements including the feminist movement have popularized attire commonly used by males, to be used for women (suits, pants, unisex attire), cross dressing has become unbelievably common, and as we are seeing in real time, the boundaries and distinctions between the clothing Men and Women should wear have been erased in these very progressive times, Men dress like Women and Women dress like Men. In Qatar, Males and Female still have distinct clothing, and modest at that. No short shorts, no Women is wearing pants or leggings, no man is wearing short shorts or tank tops, and people typically dress the same whenever they go (I'm going to exclude foreigners, they aren't classified as Qatarians). You might say "well, this is how Islam does it", our society (we both live in the U.S if I'm not wrong) back in the early 1900's used to do the exact same thing, granted, women weren't wearing hijabs, but Men and Women both had distinct clothing that was made with the intention to distinguish and accentuate the Masculinity of Men and the Femininity of Women in a modest manner, the attire didn't seek to erode the boundaries or push the level of degeneracy we see today. I am going to develop more upon the occasion in the later point below. 2) This is where we somewhat disagree, and so have other people in this comment section below. It makes zero sense that when we go to church, we wear a suit (males) or a dress (females), but once we go to the beach we wear bikini's, speedos, just swimming trunks with no shirts, or one-piece bathing suits. You condemned speedos and bikini's, but not swimming trunks (men have their shirts removed, it's ok to wear the trunks with a swimming shirt, Men don't have to take of their shirts) or one-piece bathing suits, which are bot modest either, I believe we disagree, you believe one-piece bathing suits and a man without a shirt and wearing just swimming trucks is modest? In a furth comment below I also offered alternatives, swim dresses for Women (yes, they still make them, for anyone else reading you can buy them online) and Men can wear swim shirts (yes, they don't need to be compressed either, and they shouldn't be). You also mentioned it's common sense, we obviously disagree here, and many people within the Christian faith, especially people who are young in their faith, might not explicitly know that the beach wear I listed isn't modest, so it's always good and very important to highlight these points as yes, it's not quite obvious to many individuals, especially Christian fresh from the secular world. To highlight your last paragraph, even occasions to which we are supposed to dress, can and are very distorted since they are mostly set by the secular world currently and not by people within the faith, so when it comes to dressing for the occasion, if us Christians are to go to the beach, the way we dress for that occasion should not at all emulate the secular world, but rather represent our faith in a God honoring way. This is a common problem that us Christians have to highlight more within the faith, than if we are to represent God in a God honoring way, we should not be trying to emulate the secular world, as the secular world is not trying to promote fashion that is pleasing for God in many areas. The occasions and standards the secular world has for occasions is not something we should try to emulate, with the most jarring example being the beach as I have described. In your response we both condemned the same clothing, with the exception being that you seem to not agree that pants for women, one-piece bathing suits or shirts off with just swimming trunks is immodest. 3) Again, nothing wrong with that, but during these times, it's good to call out things that are wrong, especially in a secular world that largely promotes alot of degenerate clothing. I agree, not everyone may have the money for a "nice" dress, God understands our situations. As for people in the U.S (since your TH-cam channel is a NA based channel) I understand there is poverty in the U.S, but for the majority of people living in the U.S, people can definitely buy modest clothing at a reasonable price, doesn't have to be something flashy and expensive, it can be something humble and neat, maybe from a second hand store or borrowed? Majority of the Individuals in the U.S blow off more money than we realize on things we don't need (eating out too much, unnecessary subscriptions, too many cosmetics, more clothing/food than we need, etc, an overabundance, many examples), it's common but not ok, it's because we live in a very materialistic culture. If we can make sacrifices such as for example, instead of eating out, we use that money to buy a dress to honor God, God will appreciate it, and if someone really can't afford anything modest, God is also very understanding of our situations and hardships. So yes, it's largely depending on the situation, so we agree, just needed to highlight this point, not specifically for you, but for any general reader. Continued in comment below...

@@sofialjndr Continued... (PART 2 of 2) 4) Back to this, in the first point I mentioned crossdressing, a conveniently/commonly left out point in many videos regarding modesty/attire, and no, I'm not accusing you of anything specific, I'm saying this more generally because it's something I've notice that is done more so often, and it's a very important point that people either don't know about, or don't address on purpose especially when it comes to addressing the topic of modesty. As I have stated, over the past century, especially in the west, crossdressing has become very common practice, a practice that was talked about and condemned in the Bible (Deuteronomy 22:5). To reiterate, may movements and ideologies have encouraged crossdressing, from 3 revolutionary communist films in the 60's that popularized jeans for both men and women, to Hollywood and public figures (musicians/artist) promoting crossdressing attire, to the feminist movement in the late 50's to the late 80's encouraging radical attire never seen before in history that would also be classified as crossdressing since it severed to eroded the distinctions and boundaries between Men and Women. Your position is a dangerous one to take, as I will also reiterate the same point from my last comment, if something isn't explicitly mentioned in the Bible, then we should exercise more caution and righteous judgment/knowledge/wisdom of the Holy Spirit to be able to discern between what is appropriate attire, and what could be inappropriate attire. There are alot of things not mentioned in the Bible, perhaps intentionally, it's no excuse to be lenient in many cases. The Bible might not explicitly mention something, it doesn't directly mention phones or the internet, does that mean it's ok to use those two for nefarious reasons? No. When we read the Bible, we get to know God, we also get insight into how God possibly feels about certain things we do, we also have the wisdom of the Holy Spirit to discern between what's right and wrong, and the convictions I have received, and that many other people have received, shouldn't be dismissed just because "it's not explicitly mentioned in the Bible", that would be a dangerous path and logic to adopt. 5) I was using the word legalism in a secular context, so my bad if I didn't get the point across clearly, I'm actually going to exchange that term for the words "standards" or "practices". Standards are at times enforced through rules, as I have stated, rules aren't bad, and the implementation of certain rules (regarding modesty, back to Qatar example, they do it, Modesty isn't really an issue there, it's also a flourishing as it encourages a family friendly environment and less degenerate society) within a society with the goal to glorify God. It's something we're encouraged to do (in our cases we can vote for it), "Because government is instituted by God as His “minister... for good” (Romans 13:3-4), it functions best when leaders honor and obey Him" and "(Deuteronomy 4:8) New International Version 8 And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?" If people leave the faith because they couldn't wear a pair of joga leggings to church, then that is an actual issue of the heart involving indifference and pride, and it's nobody else's fault or choice than that of the individual who made the choice to leave God. So, with the point regarding crossdressing, and immodesty, it seems pants are immodest for women (and many women have received these convictions within the faith), especially since they might only not tempt other individuals to sin, but can also be an abomination in Gods eyes since pants for women (women didn't wear pants for a long time up until 5 minutes ago) were made and popularized with the intention to erode the distinctions and boundaries between Men and Women. This all goes back to exercising caution and discernment, and I am also one of the individuals who have received these same convictions along with several others regarding modesty. I hope I was also able to provide some clarity to points I might have been too vague on! Again, I appreciate you for taking the time to respond to my comment, these dialogues have been enjoyable, if it's in your plan, I would appreciate greatly appreciate a response! Godspeed! (END) Had to split it in 2 since TH-cam thought it was too long for 1 comment

@Battlefield1918 That definitely helped clear things up, and i believe we may agree on more than you think! I, too, believe strongly in both cultural and christian traditions, as well as standards and rules. I think that may actually be why we disagree quite a bit on what constitutes as cross dressing. (I'll touch a little more on that soon) I want it to be clear to anyone reading this that I am firmly against cross dressing and believe that yes, it is explicitly condemned in the Bible! I haven't rewatched my video in a while and I cant remember if I mentioned much about cross dressing but, I do think its going a bit too far to assume that those who dont dedicate time to the subject in their video are doing it nefariously or dont have a stance on it. The reason I wouldn't have dedicated much time to it in the first place is because this video is already a video dedicated specifically to women. The majority of my returning viewers and subscribers are girls and women who are actively trying to align with the feminine nature God has created them with. Of course, cross dressing and other perverted expressions of gender identity are becoming only more prevalent each day. A dedicated video to the subject someday may be a good idea. I'll have to plan for it! As for what specifically constitutes as cross dressing I think may be what we disagree on. The interesting thing is that I think we come to different conclusions while having a very similar, if not the same, underlying philosophy behind it. It is because i believe strongly in human cultural traditions that i believe women wearing pants is not cross dressing. Let me explain: I'll be using heels as an example. High heels are considered one of the most feminine items out there in Western society. They are so closely associated with women that any young person might assume they were invented for women, but this is not the case. The first high heels were made for male persian soldiers in the 10th century. The heel allowed them to lock their feet in their stirrups. It actually hasnt been until recently that men wearing heels has been seen as a feminine thing. My husband owns a vintage pair of cuban heeled boots that were passed down to him from only three generations ago. However, if I were to see a man walking down the street in high heeled shoes today i would instinctively assume he is trying to dress more femininly and I would assume that because of our more modern cultural norms. For that reason, I would discourage men from wearing high heels, but i wouldn't call a woman a cross dresser for wearing them. Women's jeans have had a very similar transition. Our American blue jeans were designed to be practical work wear. The blue color was even specifically preferred to hide dirt when worn by laborers like miners or ranchers. Of course, those doing these jobs were men. However, during the war, when the women had to temporarily help by taking over some tougher jobs, women often reached for their husbands' durable jeans. After the war, when men came back, women still found they reached for them when doing yard or farm work. (This is why you often see old photos of women wearing jeans with a huge cuff. They had to be rolled up to fit) Slowly they became a casual and practical option of clothing for ladies but, because we didnt want women wearing mens clothing, jeans designed to fit women specifically were designed! Blue jeans have a strong place in American tradition for both men and women. I personally own one pair of blue jeans and I wear them when we visit my father-in-law's farm or when the weather get really cold. No one seeing me in my blue jeans assumes Im trying to dress more masculine. Especially because im wearing them at the appropriate times. Now, I dont mean to say that all women everywhere should start wearing jeans, but if you're an american woman, jeans are not considered cross dressing in your culture. I think we all would benefit from getting closer to our roots and learning from those who have gone before us. It's a beautiful thing to research your cultural background and connect with it in practice. I love wearing my blue jeans. I love wearing my prarie dresses with cowboy boots. I love it because they both look and make me feel feminine and have a connection to my Texan roots. I can also research and learn from other cultures, but i have no obligation to adopt their traditons towards the way i dress. No one looks at me in my blue jeans, long plaited hair with a bow, feminine floral top, and assumes im cross dressing in any western country. Your point about jeans being inmodest because they've "been around for five minutes" is both incorrect and wouldn't hold up when with any other piece of clothing. You would have to then admit that women wearing high heels is cross dressing because they have a very similar history. An extremely simplified way of explaining my process towards dressing modestly would be: The word of God > Earthly Authority (parents, dress code requirements) > Cultural Traditons This is another thing, I have no problem with local rules and standards. You should listen to how your parents tell you to dress. You should follow the dress code that schools, social clubs, churches, or whatever else places for you. You should do that because obeying authority is biblical and also because order is a huge part of modesty. The issue when making a video about how you ought to dress is that the authority and cultural traditions aspects will change from person to person. Even in America, every state has its own history. That being said, transcendent truths will often find themselves in cultures all over the world, so you will find similarities among many traditions. I won't tell people they ought to dress according to Qatar's standards because not everyone has that tradition or culture. I will, however, share the transcendent truths that christians should follow no matter where you are.

Hi, when I say that, I really mean my father is a pastor, and my mother is a pastor's wife! My mother in no way "pastors" but does do so much work involved in the ministry of course. I am of the belief that only men are called to be Pastors.

@@sofialjndr Understood. Thank you!

I’m a Christian woman but would not want to dress like a Muslim woman. I agree that modesty is a good thing but showing our hair and faces is also a good thing, it gives us our identity and if a man can’t cope with seeing a woman’s hair there is something seriously wrong with that man. If a woman chooses to wear a scarf or hat that is perfectly fine as it’s only in the modern age these things have gone out of fashion. My grandmother who was born in 1899 never left the house without a hat but that was more to do with respectability than modesty.

@@Vikingseer I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering. The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus. I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long. But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way… Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off. So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15. So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.

Well you may disagree but the Bible says otherwise: But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 1 Corinthians 11:15. To say that the hair being the covering is not necessarily true flies in the face of Scripture and God. You should retract your statement and more importantly repent before God.

@@robertmiller812i will not retract my statement because it is true. hair IS our covering, but the verses before are talking about another covering. our hair is our natural covering given by God, but we cover and uncover our head with a veil.

@@emilymburtt But that is not what you stated that it is untrue that the long hair of a woman is her covering and I proved that it is. Now you are saying that it is. You should then rewrite the first comment to reflect what you are saying now. Also where does it say "another covering" or veil? You are trying to make distinction between hair and veil by saying that the hair is the natural covering but Paul is not making any distinction he is clarifying what he was talking about since the beginning. I hope that you will at least point to a verse where it says veil or another covering.

@@robertmiller812 Statement #1: (for the people that say “your hair is your covering” that’s not necessarily true.) Statement #2 (I will not retract my statement because it is true. hair IS our covering) Either it is or it isn’t BOTH cannot be true.

@@JohnYoder-vi1gj Amen to that and thank you for catching the discrepancy but I don't that will matter if they are going to believe in something regardless of the lack of evidence then conflicting terms won't matter either.

Thank you so much 🥰 I'm getting there, stick around!

Very true 🙌

Mathew summarizes the whole idea beautifully!

Prayer is key!

God bless you 🩷

Yes, when he first messaged me, he was an unbeliever. However, we never dated until he had been a christian for a good time! I definitely don't think it's in the best interest of any christian to marry someone who is not a believer.

oh, I'm so glad to hear it was a blessing! 🤍

it can be so hard!