Are we commanded to cut our hair or not?

[Guest Biblicist]

[

Vickilynn, I just re-read the exchange in the "Pick and Choose Laws" thread. You did seem rather bent out of joint by the shortening of your name. When Gia appologized you said she was rude.

Even if you really were not offended, it sure looks as if you were. It READS as if you were.

Just adding my 2cents. Shiloh is not totally off base on this one.

Shalom Biblicist,

Yes, Shiloh is off-base because no matter how it reads, I am telling him (and you) that I was not and am not offended. We all know that posts can be taken several ways and obviously, mine was taken wrong if it seemed I was upset. I wasn't and still am not. Now, that wouldn't be a problem except that we have Shiloh insisting that he knows what I was feeling when I'm telling him he is mistaken. And since there is no eay that he can know my emotions and can PROVE I was offended, it is totally ridiculous to persue his insistence on this matter. He will not let go of the lie and embrace the truth. That, is off-base from someone who wishes to teach the Scriptures. What he should do is to say, "I read the exchange and it SEEMED as if you were offended. But since you say you were not, I am sorry for assuming you were." Of course, that would only happen with someone who was open to the truth.

OK, I read the exchange and it SEEMED as if you were offended, many people thought, and still think, you were. But since you say that you were not, I am sorry for assuming you were."

I do believe though that you need to let this go IN THIS THREAD. It has been taken totally off topic and that will cause the thread to be closed, if you feel this is an important topic to discuss then you would do what it takes to keep that from happening.

If you really feel that you need to continue it, opening another thread would be the kind and gracious thing to do. What has happened here is considering hijacking a thread. You, and Shiloh, have completely taken over the thread with your petty argument and caused the conversation to completely move away from what the original post was. That is very wrong. This thread was not yours to begin with. You owe the OP an apology and you need to move on.

I am sorry if this seems rather blunt.

[MeCajunboy]

Well, I found two verses that appear contradictory. I have heard that Leviticus 19 is referring to cutting your hair, how do we know that's what it means? Because if it does indeed mean "Do not cut your hair" then how can we possibly prevent a man from having long hair? And is shaving okay?

Leviticus 19:27 - Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

Just a note, the first part of this verse in the NIV bible makes reference to hair specifically, but in the KJV it does not.

1 Corinthians 11:14 - Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

I'm somewhat confused, help please?

God Bless,

Keilan

Well for me it's pretty simple! I just think God made HIS words for all mankind to comprehend/understand. I believe we already know in our hearts, (if God is living inside us), how we should wear our hair. But what I find most extraordinary is how many Christians responded to this particular topic, (me inclusive) which I have to wonder how much VANITY plays a roll in our lives, when we compare it to those that ask questions on topics involving "SIN" and things of that nature. We all seem to have an opinion when it comes to maintaining our "Physical presence", yet not as much to do with maintaining our "spiritual Presence."

Blessings/Prayers

Cajunboy

[Vickilynn]

OK, I read the exchange and it SEEMED as if you were offended, many people thought, and still think, you were. But since you say that you were not, I am sorry for assuming you were."

Shalom Biblicist,

Thank you. I appreciate the sentiment.

As far as what other people think, it truly doesn't matter. The truth is the only thing that matters.

I do believe though that you need to let this go IN THIS THREAD. It has been taken totally off topic and that will cause the thread to be closed, if you feel this is an important topic to discuss then you would do what it takes to keep that from happening.

Thank you for your concern and instruction, I will pray about what you have said and do as the L-rd leads. I answer to G-d for what I do, but thank you for sharing your beliefs on how I should conduct myself.

[Guest Biblicist]

Well, I found two verses that appear contradictory. I have heard that Leviticus 19 is referring to cutting your hair, how do we know that's what it means? Because if it does indeed mean "Do not cut your hair" then how can we possibly prevent a man from having long hair? And is shaving okay?

Leviticus 19:27 - Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

Just a note, the first part of this verse in the NIV bible makes reference to hair specifically, but in the KJV it does not.

1 Corinthians 11:14 - Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

I'm somewhat confused, help please?

God Bless,

Keilan

Well for me it's pretty simple! I just think God made HIS words for all mankind to comprehend/understand. I believe we already know in our hearts, (if God is living inside us), how we should wear our hair. But what I find most extraordinary is how many Christians responded to this particular topic, (me inclusive) which I have to wonder how much VANITY plays a roll in our lives, when we compare it to those that ask questions on topics involving "SIN" and things of that nature. We all seem to have an opinion when it comes to maintaining our "Physical presence", yet not as much to do with maintaining our "spiritual Presence."

Blessings/Prayers

Cajunboy

Well put!

[Openly Curious]

'Vickilynn'

Shalom Biblicist,

Yes, Shiloh is off-base because no matter how it reads, I am telling him (and you) that I was not and am not offended. We all know that posts can be taken several ways and obviously, mine was taken wrong if it seemed I was upset. I wasn't and still am not. Now, that wouldn't be a problem except that we have Shiloh insisting that he knows what I was feeling when I'm telling him he is mistaken. And since there is no eay that he can know my emotions and can PROVE I was offended, it is totally ridiculous to persue his insistence on this matter. He will not let go of the lie and embrace the truth. That, is off-base from someone who wishes to teach the Scriptures. What he should do is to say, "I read the exchange and it SEEMED as if you were offended. But since you say you were not, I am sorry for assuming you were." Of course, that would only happen with someone who was open to the truth.

'Biblicist'

OK, I read the exchange and it SEEMED as if you were offended, many people thought, and still think, you were. But since you say that you were not, I am sorry for assuming you were."

I do believe though that you need to let this go IN THIS THREAD. It has been taken totally off topic and that will cause the thread to be closed, if you feel this is an important topic to discuss then you would do what it takes to keep that from happening.

If you really feel that you need to continue it, opening another thread would be the kind and gracious thing to do. What has happened here is considering hijacking a thread. You, and Shiloh, have completely taken over the thread with your petty argument and caused the conversation to completely move away from what the original post was. That is very wrong. This thread was not yours to begin with. You owe the OP an apology and you need to move on.

I am sorry if this seems rather blunt.

I am very glad that you recognized this Biblicist only Vickilyn knows if she was offended or not and there have been many posts that was taken wrong before as we all know. I think it is wrong of Shiloh to insist that Vickilyn is not telling the truth and is lying. We should take her word as that would be the right thing to do in this case. As none of us have the right to judge her cause only she knows if she was offended or not and she has stated she was not offended.

OC

[Vickilynn]

I am very glad that you recognized this Biblicist only Vickilyn knows if she was offended or not and there have been many posts that was taken wrong before as we all know. I think it is wrong of Shiloh to insist that Vickilyn is not telling the truth and is lying. We should take her word as that would be the right thing to do in this case. As none of us have the right to judge her cause only she knows if she was offended or not and she has stated she was not offended.

OC

Shalom OC,

Thank you so much.

[Openly Curious]

I am very glad that you recognized this Biblicist only Vickilyn knows if she was offended or not and there have been many posts that was taken wrong before as we all know. I think it is wrong of Shiloh to insist that Vickilyn is not telling the truth and is lying. We should take her word as that would be the right thing to do in this case. As none of us have the right to judge her cause only she knows if she was offended or not and she has stated she was not offended.

OC

Shalom OC,

Thank you so much.

oc

[Guest Biblicist]

Proverbs 27:5 Better is open rebuke

than hidden love. 6 Wounds from a friend can be trusted,

but an enemy multiplies kisses.

[Guest shiloh357]

I had read the exchanges between you and Butero and it seem like the point he was making was that you were using a double standard in relation to certain doctrines on the one hand the hair issue was only in Corinthians and so you were saying that if it had been intended for the other churches it would have been in the other epistles as well. But you were not applying the same standards to other doctrines as I also agree with that assumption. So what is wrong with pointing out that contradiction? As it is not an accusation but an "observation" that was made.

What you are not including in this the way that I responded to Butero, more than once, for the same accusation and clarified and reclarified my position. I pointed out to Butero that there was no "doublestandard." A doublestandard is when you take to exact situations and apply different rules to each. In the case of my hermeneutic approach there is no doublestandard because my point was there is a difference between the remarks made in Paul's epistles which amount to personal advice to a specific person or audience, and remarks which amount to genuine doctrinal substance. Because the hair issue, is not doctrinal, it require a different approach than say the 13th chapter of 1 Corinthians which is clearly more doctrinal and thus universal in scope and application. The responses I get to the various times I tried and retried to state my position more clearly, the more I was falsely accused.

Where did Butero show a lack of grace and respect in pointing out what I said above already. I believe Butero said that it was your method of interpretation that certain doctrines only applied to certain New Testament churches which can open up the door for false doctrines and that is what he was saying was dangerous and I have to once again agree with that because false doctrines are always dangerous and leads others astray.

The "lack of grace" was a comparison. Vickilynn accuses me of lacking grace for stating that my opponents are wrong in their understanding of what Paul was addressing. Yet, the fact that my position was also accused of as wrong, and that seems to get passed over.

However, both you and Butero do not understand one very important point that I made over and over. I am not saying that certain doctrines are only for certain churches. That was NEVER my position. I made the point and took great pains to make the point that doctrinal material in the Scriptures is universal in scope and applicability. My point is that "hair length" is NOT doctrinal. I said that there parts of Paul's epistles where he gives advice to certain groups that applies to their unique situation and evirons. He addressed issues with the Corinthians that he did not with with the Romans, or the Colossians. Galatians had their own set of issues and challenges as well. I made the point that while these issues are not really doctrinal in nature, it does not mean that they are not spiritually relevant to modern Christians even if the specific issues and situations no longer exist (such as meat sacrificed to idols and drunken love feasts). Not everything presented in the Scriptures is doctrinal, and it is wrong to treat passages that are not doctrinal as doctrinal. Or to put it another way, we treat prophecies different than parables. We do not read proverb like we do the gospels. There are different literary types in the Bible and they require different treatment. Read do not treat the Law of Moses the same way as we treat the book of Revelation. It really is that simple. There is nothing inconsistent or uneven about my treatment. It is a matter of some people not having a solid, working knowledge of hermeneutics. In every passage, it needs to be read according to the author's intentions, not with a view to supporting a doctrine of our own making.

I would like to know what the choice words are that you are referring to here butero said? Also, how is pointing these things out showing a lack of grace and respect?

Well, according to some people, it is only a lack of respect if it comes from me. That is my point. I am simply pointing out the doublestandard.

I just think if you are pointing the finger here at those who would question something you may have to say or have a differing opinion and they share that opinion and view is wrong then it is equally wrong of you to share an oppossing opinion don't you think?

I am not pointing a finger at anyone who is questioning me. The nature of debate is that two people or groups have opposing views and both think that the other is wrong. In debate it is up to each side to present why they feel the other view is wrong. I cannot say, "I disagree" without the obvious inference that I believe that the opposing view is incorrect or wrong. When I disagree with someone it is because I think their position is wrong.

In this particular situation, instead of the other presenting their evidence, they are simply mad because I said that they are wrong and then I proceeded to explain why I believe their position is wrong. That is how debate works. Saying that someone is wrong is not tantamount to saying that they don't have a right to voice their opinion, it does not mean that they are a bad person. There is nothing hateful about it at all. It simply means that I do not receive their position as correct. It is therefore up to me to present the evidence for why I believe that my position is more correct than theirs.

Like it or not, that is the nature of beast. That is how debate is done. If you don't want to be told that you are wrong, don't get into a debate.

[Vickilynn]

Shalom,

Matthew 23

12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.