1 cor 11 (the hair issue)

[Guest shiloh357]

What Jesus was showing is that God looks on the heart as well as the outward actions. He was showing that simply appearing righteous, yet having crud on the inside still meant there was crud and a need for a Savior.

It was more than that. Jesus was correcting the rabbinical perversions that made it okay to lust and hate and that sin was only sin when it was carried out in the flesh.

He wasn't saying that since we can't live 100 percent up to God's standards, we shouldn't do our best.

I didn't say he said that. His point is that not only should you not sin, there should not be anything in your heart to prompt it in the first place.

You are expanding on what the scripture says in Deuteronomy 22:5.

I am following a biblical principle. If the law tells you what to do if your ox gores the neighbor's sheep, but doesn't tell you what to do if your goat gores the neighbor's sheep, what do you do? You simply extrapolate from the commandment pertaining to the ox and apply it to the goat.

That is what I mean by a behavioral paradigm. A specific commandment is more than it appears in cold text. The commandment not to wear what pertains to a member of the opposite sex would include everything that pertains to the opposite sex. It would also include behaviors associated with it, including transvestitism. It really is not very hard to understand how the law works.

No, I called it a sign of submission, not a commandment.

This entire discussion you have treated it as a commandment.

On post 173, you said the following:

What is taking place here is people breaking God's commandments, and teaching men to do likewise. Unlike your god Fez, my God does expect me to obey his laws.

So to claim this is not a commandment issue for you is false. It is exactly a commandment issue. According to you, if we disagree wth you about hair, and pants, we are "itching ear preachers" and teaching false doctrine and so on.

You have the nerve to accuse me of being too prideful to admit to a mistake, and then you respond like this? You claimed my definition of cross-dressing was wrong, so I turned to what I thought was a reliable source, Webster's Dictionary for the truth. I post his definition, and you attack that, and then come up with a crazy explaination of how it may say that, but the definition isn't good enough?

That is not what I said. I said that words have denotations and connotations and one must be careful to understand how words and phrases are used. Word usage always trumps lexical definitions. You are trying to limit the discussion to only definition because when faced with how cross dressing is understood by society at large, your argument fails. I am not disputing the definition at all. I am disputing your mshandling of the definition.

That was the sole definition in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. Cross-dress doesn't mean transvestite. You are wrong.

I did not say it meant "tranvestite." I am sayng that the word cross dressing is generally applied to transvestitism and would never be applied to the women who wore mens over alls and cover alls in the factories during World War II. It is a phrase that is usually only associated with tranvestitism.

I do look at Rosie the Riveter wearing over-alls as a cross dresser.

You are alone in your peculiarity.

It is not my fault people don't understand the correct meaning of this word. That is your problem. Take it up with Webster. Tell him how he got it wrong, because you know more about the English language than he does.

It is your fault for not knowing how to handle basic English. You need to learn the difference between what a word means and how it is used. People use the word love to mean carry the connotation of hate, as in "I just LOVE it when people cut me off in traffic." Back when I was a kid "wicked" was used to express how good something was. A friend of mine had a car accident on Jan 1. He said, "what a wonderful way to start the year." "Wonderful" used to express how awful it was. Those ae connotations. Just looking at what a word means is not the end of it. One must also look at how the word or phrase is used in every day life.

BUTERO I am not qualified to answer that. All judgment was left to Jesus so we would honor him. Is it possible some women may wind up in hell for wearing pants? I believe it is, just as I believe some people will wind up in hell for telling them it is ok to do something sinful.

Ah, legalism at it's best.

[Guest shiloh357]

You cannot prove that God has not commanded all men for all time to have short hair.

The absence of any such commandment would be an important clue.

BUTERO Then how did Paul's audience know when they crossed the line?

That is the point. YOU are making it an issue of hair length. Understanding the culture tells me that the over arching issue pertains to wearing their hair in a feminine manner and wearing it very long in their worship of God. They were used to dressing as women and havig long hair to worship aphrodite, so it makes sense that Paul would advice them to cut their hair so that they do not worship God in the same manner they worshipped Aphrodite.

You absolutely did do the exact same thing I did. God was telling the prophet that when he chose David, he didn't go by outward appearance, but his heart. He was only speaking of David, yet you took this to the point of creating a doctrinal point out of it.

I did not make a doctrinal point out of it. My application did not violate the context because first of all, I drew from a narrative text, not a teaching or doctrinal treatise. What was said by Samuel would be true in any situation. God always looks on the heart, and judges our motives and our thoughts. There is no limitation of context on that prinicple. There is no "context" in life that it would not be true. So it is far away different than how you are violating context by introducing subject matter such as the Jewish dietary laws into a discusion that is too radically different from the intent of the author to be useful in the context of a discussion of food sacrificed to idols.

[Guest shiloh357]

I fail to see any major difference between what I said and what you said.

You said it was to show us we need a Savior. I said it was to show us that sin begins in the heart long before it is carried out in the flesh. Wanting to sin is just as sinful as the act of sin itself.

The first part of your response I agree with. Then you take a wrong turn. Your comparison doesn't work. I more reasonable comparison would be to say that Deuteronomy 22:5 states that a man shouldn't wear a woman's garment, but doesn't say exactly what that means.

It doesn't have to. It gives you enough credit to know what that means and I find it strange that every one else can understand it but you can't.

BUTERO No, I called it a sign of submission, not a commandment.

SHILOH357 This entire discussion you have treated it as a commandment.

On post 173, you said the following:

What is taking place here is people breaking God's commandments, and teaching men to do likewise. Unlike your god Fez, my God does expect me to obey his laws.

So to claim this is not a commandment issue for you is false. It is exactly a commandment issue. According to you, if we disagree wth you about hair, and pants, we are "itching ear preachers" and teaching false doctrine and so on.

BUTERO We are talking about two differen't matters here, hair length and cross-dressing. Cross dressing is a sin. Long hair on a man is not a sin, but it show that man is not in subjection to Christ. If I inadvertantly made it appear I was saying long hair on a man was a sin, it was a mistake, but I have made my position clear so many times throughout this thread that it is not a sin, my view is obvious. Nice try though.

Yes, the context of that statemnt was in a discussion of hair length with fez and rockstar.

And I am saying that when people in society don't know the definition of a word, and I am using the word correctly, the problem is their not mine.

Everyone knows the definition of the word. The problem on your part is how it is used. Society at large views cross-dressing within the context of a particular behavior. It is only applied to transvestitism in regular conversation. Given that transsexual behavior was rampant in pagan cultures it makes sense that God forbade men and women to wear each other's clothes. It was to guard against them being tempted to adopt pagan practices in the worship of God.

Then it is generally applied wrong.

No it isn't applied wrong. That would be like saying "I love ice cream" is a wrong application of the word "love."

It is like the controversy that occured when a man used the word niggardly. It was generally thought by people in the black community he was using a slur towards them, and they demanded an apology and his firing. He did nothing wrong. The people attacking him were wrong for not knowing the English language.

It's not like that at all. You are talking about how a word is confused with another word that is not etymologically connected to it.

You stated yourself in this thread that what she wore was considered men's clothing. Again, according to Webster, the definition of cross-dress is to dress in clothing typically worn by members of the opposite sex. In order for you to say she was not a cross-dresser, you have to be devoid of reality. Again, the problem is with you, not me.

Here is what The American Heritage Dictionary says:

cross dressing

noun

the practice of adopting the clothes or the manner or the sexual role of the opposite sex [syn: transvestism]

WordNet

[Guest shiloh357]

When you were responding to my post earlier, you missed part. I knew it had to be an oversight, so I am re-posting it. I am very interested in your response?

BUTERO It comes down to which historians one trusts.

SHILOH357No, it comes down to your selective rejection of history when history becomes inconvenient.

BUTERO I mentioned how some of them teach the Baptist church traces it's roots to the early church, and that is not widely accepted as fact. You pick and choose what you want to believe and then attack me for holding to the views I choose to. That is called hypocrisy.

SHILOH357 I guess this needs to be put in context. I guess you forgot that I posted that as a point of view of ONE MAN and not as 100% reliable history. Besides, it was a pampmlet, not a scholarly historical work. I did not present it as, "This is what all Baptists believe."

What I said was that Baptists are not Protestants in that they did not break off of a protestant denomination like the Episcopals or Presbyterians or Lutherans. Some Baptists do believe that they can trace Baptist history to the original church in 1st century Jerusalem. I presented that claim, but I never asserted that it is proven or is 100% historical fact. So, it is not hypocrisy on my part, but a poor recollection of events on your part.

BUTERO The most widely accepted view is that Baptists trace their roots back to John Calvin. In denying that claim, you used a questionable historian to do so. Had I posted an excerpt from a pamphlet speaking against women in pants, you would have attacked me for even using it. You have a double standard where you use whatever is convenient to make your point.

By the way, why do you believe the Baptist Church doesn't trace it's roots to Calvin, when that is the most widely accepted view? What sources did you use to come to your conclusions?

BUTERO But that is not the standard you use consistently.

SHILOH357 Yes it is.

BUTERO Then this should be easy. Tell me the name of the historians that convinced you the Baptist Church didn't trace it's roots to Calvin? Why do you believe they trace their roots to the early church?

I have already explained myself and what my original intentions were in this thread. I never said I believed they can trace their origins to the early church. I said it was the view of ONE man and not the majority view. I thought that would have been clear enough.

[nebula]

Has anyone ever used this passage to declare toupees to be a sin? OR justification for women wearing wigs?

Unless the toupee is long, I don't see what would be wrong in it?

A toupee is a head covering, is it not?

The Bible states that long hair is the woman's covering, not just hair of any length. There would be nothing wrong with a toupee that is short.

But would he not be praying with his head covered if wearing a toupee while praying?

Only if it is long hair. In that passage, it specifically mentions long hair is the woman's covering.

4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.

[nebula]

In other words, when it comes to interpreting Scriptures that restrict women, you defend it. When someone points out an application that restricts men, you reject it.

I'm not the only one who recognizes this.

[Guest Butero]

In other words, when it comes to interpreting Scriptures that restrict women, you defend it. When someone points out an application that restricts men, you reject it.

I'm not the only one who recognizes this.

What are you talking about??? As a man, I am required to have short hair. When it begins to get too long, I get convicted and have to get it cut. I have no clue what the heck you are talking about! This passage is very clear as to what it is saying. Long hair on a man, bad. Long hair on a woman, good. You didn't point out anything. You used one verse out of a passage from a perverted Bible translation to attempt to make a point.

By the way, who else recognizes this? LadyC? Some of these charges have become laughable!

[nebula]

A toupee covers a man's head as far as I'm concerned - however you want to word it.

[nebula]

By the way, who else recognizes this?

Others

[Guest Butero]

A toupee covers a man's head as far as I'm concerned - however you want to word it.

So does his own hair, but in context, it clearly states that the man can have short hair on his head. As long as the toupee is short, it is ok. You mentioned restrictions? If the toupee has long hair, the man would be wrong to wear it, and there are toupees made for men that are long.