Pick and Choose Laws

[Guest Biblicist]

Now for LadyC's question.

Again, it goes back to the culture and time period. Greek culture in the 1st century and earlier was very prone to homosexuality. Paul's issue with long hair on men was not that it was wrong per se, but that this applied to the male prostitutes just as the shaven head issue applied to the female prostitutes. Homosexuality was so rampant in Greece that laws actually had to be passed that forced men to marry women and procreate so that the race would not die out. To ancient Greeks the female body was seen as deformed, and not as desirable as the male body, hence men would act, dress and carry on in a femine fashion to attract other men.

Again, men who were saved out of this lifestyle would probably need to have short hair. This is was a Greek problem, not a universal decree to all people in every generation. I can imagine for some men who are prone to that lifestyle today, long hair on other men might be problematic.

Paul was not trying to establish a "dress code." He was not dictating what everyone should look like. The letters to Corinth, both of them, address many issues that were unique to that congregation, and we need to make sure we read these letters with that in mind.

Well, if that is the case considering now in our culture and time period homosexuality is rampant, might not those verses apply again? Short hair on women can mean a homosexual lifestyle, not sure about long hair on men. I have a cousin who came out of a homosexual lifestyle and she kept her hair rather short.

[Floatingaxe]

1 Cor 11:13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Let's get that right!!!!!!!!!

But it's still a shame for a man to have long hair. There may be no such custom but the fact still remains that it is a shame.

The same thing goes for women with short hair.

If it was not important, Paul never would have mentioned it.

Men who have long hair and women who have short hair dishonor their head.

The head of woman is man, the head of man is Christ, and the head of Christ is the Father.

I used to have long hair....I don't anymore.

Is there anyone else that you can think of that didn't have long hair?

What????

I have short hair. The Lord has never told me to grow it, or that He is displeased with me, for wearing a style of hair that becomes me.

Do you pray?

All the time. It really makes no difference if my hair is long or short. Jesus lives in me.

[Guest LadyC]

i don't think the length of hair is associated with heterosexual or homosexual activity anymore. personally i find long hair on a man attractive. i know lots of men that find short hair on a woman attractive.

now, male underwear models, that's a different story! i'm sure there are lots of straight ones who are royally ticked when they find their photos posted on gay porn sites!

[stafy]

I am wondering why Christians pick and choose which Biblical laws they want to follow.

We are either FREE from the bindings of the law or we are bound by the laws.

We can't just decide yes on some and no on the others.

For example;

tithing

drinking alcohol

sabbath worship

tattoos

dietary laws

circumcise

cutting hair

trimming beards

make up

jewelry

women wearing pants

forgiving debts after 7 years

the list of laws go on and on....

Dear Giaour, Must excellent, I'm so excited to see you growing in the lord, finally some sence here at worthy boards.

And yes, most will not know what your talking about and take it the wrong way. As you can see by the lovely people how have responded so far. But you are absouletly right it is good to hear of another one who is beginning to get IT. Most say we are not under the law but that is there heads speaking, in their hearts they are still under the law.

It takes some good joruning in the lord to get such revelation.

Keep it up, i'm so so happy for you.

[sierra21]

Actually, tithing was instituted during Abraham's time, long before Moses. And according to the NT, since Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law, if we are obedient to HIS teachings, we are obeying all the Law--that is, the Spirit of the Law.

I'm pretty sure Mike's comment got overlooked so im bumping it.

Also mike- you might want to head over to the tithing thread in doctrinal. Some people cannot wrap their head around tithing, and I can't seem to knock any sense into em...so maybe go give it a try??

Blessings!

[Guest man]

Shiloh, I'm with Gia, which ones should we take and use, I understand I'm asking allot of you here, but I would really like to know. And what about the NT verses brought up about a woman praying with her head uncovered, and long hair????

Well first you need to study the position the Corinthian beleivers were in, and what was going on to make such commandments necessary. In their particular situation, it was probably was better for women to have long hair. Please note that you do not find this commandment in any of the general epistles that were distributed all over the place to churches in the known world in that day. Paul wrote this to the Corinthians.

I think that having the ability to read everything all at once gives the false impression that everything in every letter is to be understood and applied universally.

In Greece, you had the Oracles of Delphi. You also had the shaven headed female prostitutes that accompanied this religion. When these women got saved and entered the church, it was better for their hair to be grown out and their heads to be covered until their hair was long enough. Sometimes it is simple as something like that. We try to make doctrines out of something that is not even doctrinal in nature.

In the Corinthian situation, it was probably less distracting for the new born again women to keep their heads covered and draw attention away from their sordid past. It also protected them from being looked down on, while also proving that they were serious about their new faith, and wanted to completely shed their old life.

So are you sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that these verses concerning hair length do not apply to us and that we are to simply ignore them?

[Guest shiloh357]

Now for LadyC's question.

Again, it goes back to the culture and time period. Greek culture in the 1st century and earlier was very prone to homosexuality. Paul's issue with long hair on men was not that it was wrong per se, but that this applied to the male prostitutes just as the shaven head issue applied to the female prostitutes. Homosexuality was so rampant in Greece that laws actually had to be passed that forced men to marry women and procreate so that the race would not die out. To ancient Greeks the female body was seen as deformed, and not as desirable as the male body, hence men would act, dress and carry on in a femine fashion to attract other men.

Again, men who were saved out of this lifestyle would probably need to have short hair. This is was a Greek problem, not a universal decree to all people in every generation. I can imagine for some men who are prone to that lifestyle today, long hair on other men might be problematic.

Paul was not trying to establish a "dress code." He was not dictating what everyone should look like. The letters to Corinth, both of them, address many issues that were unique to that congregation, and we need to make sure we read these letters with that in mind.

Well, if that is the case considering now in our culture and time period homosexuality is rampant, might not those verses apply again? Short hair on women can mean a homosexual lifestyle, not sure about long hair on men. I have a cousin who came out of a homosexual lifestyle and she kept her hair rather short.

Again, I am addressing the situation in Corinth and their unique situation. The issue is not the length of the hair so much as it is the issue of men not purposefully looking feminine,which is was the practice of the male prostitutes in the ancient Greek temple cults.

To be honest, homosexuality today is not near the problem it was in ancient Greece. Our homosexual "movements" can't hold a candle to the prevalence it had gained in ancient Greece. I mean, we really don't grasp the situation and culture that surrounded the Corinthinian church, and what they were dealing with. Our modern "culture war" is a walk in the park by comparison.

[Guest shiloh357]

So are you sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that these verses concerning hair length do not apply to us and that we are to simply ignore them?

I am not saying that they are completely irrelevant, but what I am saying is that they need to be understood in the light of the Corinthian Church's situation and the challenges they were facing as these former homosexuals, temple prostitutes, idolators, etc. were trying to understand the relationship of their new faith with the culture in which they were in.

Paul's point was not so much the length of a man's hair, but that men should avoid appearing feminine. That would have been particularly relevant for the recipients of his letter in Corinth.

[Guest Biblicist]

i don't think the length of hair is associated with heterosexual or homosexual activity anymore. personally i find long hair on a man attractive. i know lots of men that find short hair on a woman attractive.

now, male underwear models, that's a different story! i'm sure there are lots of straight ones who are royally ticked when they find their photos posted on gay porn sites!

If they don't want their exposed bodies paraded on porn sites then why do they pose for those pictures in the first place? What do they expect? Internet or catalog makes no difference to a sick twisted mind.

Shiloh,

Well, then, if the hair length issue does not apply these days then what does? Do we disreguard all of scripture because it was not written to US?

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh,

Well, then, if the hair length issue does not apply these days then what does? Do we disreguard all of scripture because it was not written to US?

It is not a matter of disregarding it. It is a matter of knowing what is spiritually relevant, and the lessons we can learn from the issues faced by Corinthian believers. This is why hermeneutics are so important. We need to understand that Paul's epistles were not originally written to everyone, but to specific groups who needed instruction pretaining the unique, specific and individual challenges they were facing. It is not a case of not being able to glean spiritual understanding and lessons from their experiences and the advice Paul gave them. We might even be able to apply the prinicples in Paul's advice to a situation we are facing today, but we need to understand that the letters are addressing a people in history.

Any text in Scripture must be understood with respect to the object the author had in view. Unfortunately, all to often we read our own culture into the Bible, and that is why we end up arguing over things like drinking wine, or hair length, or whether or not it is a sin to wear jewlery, or other such nonsense.