Hair: to cut or not to cut

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Jan let's agree to disagree on this :-)

>> Verse 16 of 1Cor. 11 (NIV has the best rendering) is conclusive. Paul 
>> is very clear that this is the only recognized custom that the 
>> churches recognize.
>
>RecognizeD, yes. The point Paul is making, is that women should look 
>like women and men should look like men. In a cultural setting where 
>woman does not have long hair, it will be wrong to try to enforce such 
>a standard. In that case, the sociaty outside the church will accuse 
>the christians of being immoral, which was exactly the situation Paul 
>would avoid.
>
Are you saying that the culture of which a Christian finds himself, sets the
standard of conduct?  Rubbish.  Enforcing a standard would be unethical,
setting a standard and leaving it up to an individual choice would be more
the Christian norm.  But to leave every issue up to a societal ethic would
be, in my way of thinking, to make Chrisitianity a farce.

>> The application Treece makes IMHO is that of Paul's referring to the 
>> order of creation, i.e. man made first and the woman made from the 
>> man, the woman made for man and not the man made for the woman, 
>> verses 7-9.  It seems that this is intended purpose of God for all 
>> time.  This 'order of creation' is the focus and not a cultural or 
>> social dogma. 
>
>Treece says this, yes, but he's wrong. On the contrary, Paul rejected 
>the idea that order of creation made men somehow higher than women. 

You have forgotten Treece's statement that he was not saying that the man
was somehow better or higher than the woman.  The argument is not who is
higher, stronger, more apt, more inteligent, etc. the argument is that there
is an orderly arraingment.  When Paul admonishes wives to be submissive to
thier husbands he is not saying that they are second class citizens but that
they can embrace a position that will bless the union of man and woman.  The
order calls for the woman to submit to the man, not because she is the lesser.

>> Isn't this a speculation pure and simple.  Cutting refers *only* to
>> complete removal?  Where is your source?
>
>Paul uses two words, as Treece says. One means "cutting" and the other 
>means "shaving". The first *can* also refer to a normal cutting, 

*can* not *only* exactly my point :-)
>
>> >The reason is that this was a custom among homosexuals of the day.  
>> >Paul even makes strained reference to man being in God's image. 
>
>> Strained?  
>
>Yes, because according to Gen 2:21-23 *both* men and women is made in 
>God's image. Logically, then, Paul's argument is not valid. 

I guess I just don't get it, Paul invalidates his own argument?  Here is
where we really do not get along at all.  You would have Paul to be strained
and logically invalid.  
>
>Progression of thought is often dangerous, because what is natural to 
>one person is unnatural to someone else. 

Is it Paul's progression of thought that is strained, invalid, and now
unnatural?
>
>> >When 1Co 11:5 says women should not have "her head uncovered" it 
>> >does not mean that she should wear a veil or hat, but that she 
>> >should use her hair as a covering. 
>> 
>> Agreed
>
>Fine.
>
>> >Having "unbound" head *means having unordered hair hanging down.* 
>> 
>> Your opinion not mine. Cut or uncut, not hanging down or bound up.
>
>Well, you agree with my definition of "bound" but not with my 
>definition of "unbound". I will leave the logical implications of this 
>to you :-)
>
Your statement I agreed with uses the KJV's word uncovered.  The statement
of unbound and your susequent defining of it is what I disagree with.  Is
that somehow illogical?

>> >It's pretty obvious that Paul does *not* mean that long hair for a 
>> >man in itself is wrong, or that short hair for women is wrong. 
>> 
>It was wrong there and then, not universally on every place for every 
>person to every time. 
>
My turn :-), First you say Paul does not mean that long hair for a man is
wrong, now you say he was saying it only to the then and there men?  I will
leave the logical implication of this to you ;-) (i'm kidding around) I do
not see any qualifying time statement, only a universal statment by Paul in
verse 16.

>Well, Chris, this is just an attempt to smear while using a disclaimer. 
>You want to use a personal attack against me. If you had been honest, 
>you would have said what you say without this first sentence. You are 
>talking with both sides of your mouth at the same time.
>
If this were a personal matter then I would simply ignor you.  There is
nothing personal about this.  But now I am accused of attacking you
personally, smearing you, dishonesty, and having ulterior motives. :-(  I am
just trying to make a point about the tone of your post.  I do not consider
anyone that is critical of my understanding an enemy.    

>As I have said already, Paul (or whoever wrote the pastorals) was 
>certainly a believer in universal salvation (Tit 2:11; 3:2,8; 1Ti 
>2:1,4; 4:10). 

Jan, I would love to move on to this topic and shall in my next post as this
one has become too long.

>Your complete inability to counter my last arguments has 
>even left me in a position where the last letter on this topic which I 
>am permitted to send to the mailing list is still unwritten. So, since 
>you are unable to show I'm wrong here, you are having an argument with 
>the Bible not me.
>
If you will refer to the Richard and ask for the post I made concerning this
you will see that I did make a post the error of your parable.  Please note
the last paragraph concerning differing views.  

He who sows