1 cor 11 (the hair issue)

[nebula]

Butero - You have not addressed the Nazirite vow issue as it was addressed. Why would the Lord command a practice to express dedication to Him that He would later deem a shame?

Likewise, you say that the Naziirite vow applies only to the Old Testament and has no admonition in the NT. But the command of women and men's dress was likewise an OT practice but has no admonition in the NT. That rings of inconsistency.

You say that a toupee is not a head covering, even though it is an item that covers a man's bald head.

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: (and I used the KJV this time)

How do you justify a toupee not being a cover?

In addition, you have set boundaries for what clothes pertain to a man and what clothes pertain to a woman. In a previous debate you declared that culottes do not pertain to a woman because they are pants, but yet there is nothing about them that does not pertain to a man. So what do culottes pertain to? An "it"? In this debate you stated having no problem with a woman wearing a kilt, even though a kilt pertains to a man (if you don't believe me, tell a Scotsman his hilt does not pertain to a man!).

And then you cry foul when people charge you as being legalistic or harsh on women. Your whole reasoning rings of a legalistic spirit.

[Guest shiloh357]

There is no question that sin begins in the heart, but I do not agree with you that wanting to sin is as bad as the act itself. People are tempted all the time.

Yes, but wanting to sin means you have succumbed to temptation already. The Bible calls it concupiscience. It is the "want to" the desire to sin. Once you have the desire to commit sin, the seed has already been planted and has germinated. Wanting to sin is as bad as committing it. I can understand that if there is something in your life you don't want to give up, such a suggestion would not be welcomed.

We can give in, or we can resist.

Once you have allowed desire to take hold in our heart, you have agreed to or assented to it. Any competent Christian can understand the simple principle that is as wrong to want to murder as it is to murder. That is pretty basic.

Who is everyone else? Define everyone?

Which part of everyone else is too hard to understand?

It was, but I was refering to the entire thread when I gave that response. In case there is any question about my position with regard to hair length, I believe it is a shame for a man to have long hair, and women to have short hair, not a sin.

Actually, you originally argued that it dishonors Christ for a man to have long hair. So how can a person dishonor Christ withot committing sin in the process?? How precisely does that work?

SHILOH357 No it isn't applied wrong. That would be like saying "I love ice cream" is a wrong application of the word "love."

BUTERO That is still a type of love. Your comparison doesn't work.

No the comparison is designed to demonstrate the absurdity of your position. Society in general understands the greater connotation of cross dressing the behavior it associated with. It is universally accepted.

The problem here is that you are hell bent on ignoring the connotation because that would run contrary to your repressive approach to the Scriptures.

People who won't take their sick children to the doctor can cite the Bible for their views. People who advocated slavery cited the Bible to support their activity. Men who abuse their wives cite Scripture to keep their wives under their thumb. That is really along the same lines with those who cite the Scriptures to dictate what people do, how they look, how much perfume they can wear, how long their dresses can be, how much jewelry a woman can wear and so forth.

You can cite Scripture to justify anything. It takes skill to properly handle the text in the light of what the author intends. Of course that requires more intellectual energy than some people are willing to exert.

Perhaps that is the case, but this is still an example of how I used a word properly, and just because others are not using it properly, I am made out to be wrong. I am not buying into that nonsense.

Except you have misstated the controversy. Using a word properly that is taken the wrong way because it sounds like bad word is entirely different than what you are doing with the term "cross dressing."

The controversy over the "n" word pertains to confusion over two different definitions pertaining two do different words. What we are dealing with here is your intellectual suicide over the difference between what a word means versus how it is used on the street.

If I say, "I love ice cream" does that mean I am involved in a romantic affair with my icream cone?" Of course not. You would naturally adjust your understanding of the connotation of the word "love" to understand what I meant.

We naturally use the cross dressing in regular conversation to refer to transvestitism. We do not apply that term to other contexts where the purpose of cross dressing is not for the purpose of sexual gratification.

Your prolem is that your argument rests on limiting any usage of the word to a lexical definition and that is simply not possible.

Your definition does nothing to show I used the word wrong. It only shows that the word can taken further. What it shows is that I was perfectly fine in using the word cross-dressing, and it is also ok to use it for a transvestite.

Which is basically the argument I have been making. It shows that the term "transvestitism" is synonomous with cross dressing. That has been my point. In regular conversation, people use cross dressing as a reference to transvestitism. The words are forever linked in the average American's mind.

Taking into account your dictionary definition, it is not the same, but your definition does nothing to show me to be wrong in the way I used the word cross-dressing.

What is shows is that you are wrong in how you handle the definition and it shows that transvestite is synonomous with cross dressing which is an important fact because it means that a woman wearing pants who is not doing it for sexual gratification is not committing a sin.

And I hear wonderful used to mean great today. If I am to accept your example, it only strengthens my position that I used the word cross-dressing properly, unless you are trying to say wonderful means awful now, where it meant great before?

No, it shows that you are not able to process the difference between meaning and connotation. You have defined cross dressing correctly, but you are avoiding the underlying reasons why the commandment was given. You have to. Because if God was really commanding agasint transvestitism, that is one less thing you can't control. It is one less thing women have to subjected to by nerotic control freaks.

[Guest LadyC]

And yes, the "others" are full of bull. The accusation was that I put restrictions on women and not on men. Show me where I did that? This is called bearing false witness, and you are very good at that.

YOU are the one bearing false witness, you liar. nobody here made any accusation against you putting restrictions on women and not men. what was said was this:

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.

and i don't need to quote every post you've made in this thread, which is what it would take to show where you did what nebula said. it's all over this board.

i need to go back to ignoring you. i wish everybody could see your true colours and could go back in time to read what you've said in the past regarding what i edited out of my previous post. unfortunately they can't, because the post you said it in was promptly deleted by the administrators of this site, for very good reason. it was dispicable. i'm quite certain i still have a copy of it quoted in one of the pm's that took place between you and i after that, before i flat out put you on ignore. but i most certainly can't post that publically, lucky for you.

you have made implication after implication, and at one point even came out and said it's quite possible that women could go to hell just for wearing pants. that's about the most cock-eyed, legalistic, unbiblical bit of heresy i've ever heard, and yet YOU have the audacity to go around accusing people like shiloh of false teaching? the sad thing is that your heart is too filled with the spirits of pride and stubbornness (which are very UNgodly spirits, by the way) to recognize your own folly. you can't learn anything and even the Holy Spirit is unable to teach you because your ears are shut tight.

i'm going back to ignoring you. because if i don't, i'll end up repeating what i edited out of my last post.

[Guest shiloh357]

Paul is talking about the worship of God. In ancient Greece male prostitutes in the temple of Aphrodite had very long hair and they wore it in a manner that was feminine. This has been found ancient pottery from Corinth and other places in Greek. Female prostitutes in the temple of Aprhodite and at the Oralces of Delphi would shave their heads as part of their worship.

It is very possible that Paul is dealing with men who formerly served as prostitutes and women who served as priestesses and prostitutes who have now become believers. Paul instructs them that for the men to pray with their heads covered (either with long hair or feminine veils) dishonor the Lord because they are employing a pagan practice in their worship of God.

Therefore, the men of that congregation were instructed to keep their hair short and women were to cover their heads until their hair had grown out. Paul was putting an end to the sex reversal. They were not resemble their former selves in their worship of God. The issue was important for that congregation but was not a commandment being made to all people for all time. That is why we don't see this issue raised to any other congregation.

[anitarose]

Please forgive me, I really don't mean to step in, but I think this thread has gone far enough when we resort to name calling. We are supposed to love each other. We can disagree respectfully but when there's what looks like hatred being spread, what do the new members who are asking questions think?

Please resolve the contention, apologize and disagree respectfully. God is not the author of confusion; rather he is the author of order. This is such a trivial thing to fight over!

Remember that you will spend eternity with the same people you are calling names to.

Blessings,

a.

[Guest LadyC]

anita, you're probably right. but let me ask, what's the difference between someone saying i'm "good at bearing false witness" (which means, literally, that i'm a "good liar") and me responding by labeling him as a liar, which means, literally, that he is bearing false witness?

[Fez]

And yes, the "others" are full of bull. The accusation was that I put restrictions on women and not on men. Show me where I did that? This is called bearing false witness, and you are very good at that.

YOU are the one bearing false witness, you liar. nobody here made any accusation against you putting restrictions on women and not men. what was said was this:

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.

and i don't need to quote every post you've made in this thread, which is what it would take to show where you did what nebula said. it's all over this board.

i need to go back to ignoring you. i wish everybody could see your true colours and could go back in time to read what you've said in the past regarding what i edited out of my previous post. unfortunately they can't, because the post you said it in was promptly deleted by the administrators of this site, for very good reason. it was dispicable. i'm quite certain i still have a copy of it quoted in one of the pm's that took place between you and i after that, before i flat out put you on ignore. but i most certainly can't post that publically, lucky for you.

you have made implication after implication, and at one point even came out and said it's quite possible that women could go to hell just for wearing pants. that's about the most cock-eyed, legalistic, unbiblical bit of heresy i've ever heard, and yet YOU have the audacity to go around accusing people like shiloh of false teaching? the sad thing is that your heart is too filled with the spirits of pride and stubbornness (which are very UNgodly spirits, by the way) to recognize your own folly. you can't learn anything and even the Holy Spirit is unable to teach you because your ears are shut tight.

i'm going back to ignoring you. because if i don't, i'll end up repeating what i edited out of my last post.

I sometimes, to be honest, think that Lady C can be a bit harsh in her replies (forgive me sister, I have never made an issue of it, and do not now).

However, the basic tenants of what she says above hold true.

What really did it for me Butero, is when you said you feel convicted when you pray if your hair is shaggy!

JESUS DOES NOT CARE!!!!!!! about the length of your hair.

He cares about the depth of your heart.

Your posts are sadly legalistic, chain bound, randomly picked, fear filled aberrations of the true meaning of the Word.

Living under law means you can blame God when things go wrong, because the law is impossible to keep in it's entirety.

Living under Grace means you search yourself and ask for forgiveness of Jesus.

And a wonderful example of that is the sad track you went down when discussing should a man wear a toupee, and how long the hair (God forbid it be animal hair that was not Kosher killed), should be - see what I mean about slavishly following law? You detract from the very Word of Jesus, and end up going down a winding road to nowhere.

All you have to do is Love Jesus.

And I would suggest that in order to do this, you start loving yourself first.

[anitarose]

anita, you're probably right. but let me ask, what's the difference between someone saying i'm "good at bearing false witness" (which means, literally, that i'm a "good liar") and me responding by labeling him as a liar, which means, literally, that he is bearing false witness?

There is no difference, my friend. It's still name calling. I'm trying to preserve the peace. What are others thinking when they view this thread--that Christians hate each other. I love you dearly, C. I love all of you and it grieves me to see this trivial thing reduce people I love to what appears to be hatred.

Excuse me while I get off here and go cry.

a.

[nebula]

Anita, unfortunately love got left behind a long time ago on this thread. And the tension you see now are tensions that have been built up over the years.

As for preserving the peace, the only thing you can do about it, really, is to pray all members involved receive a deeper revelation of the Lord's love.

[Guest LadyC]

don't cry anita, you can preserve the peace, i'm done with butero. i'll follow the thread but i promise not to address him further or to ever hit the "view anyway" link on the posts he makes that are not automatically visible to me due to the ignore feature.

fez, no need to apologize to me, i know i sometimes lack the ability to speak gently.