Are we commanded to cut our hair or not?

[Vickilynn]

Shalom Brian,

Yes, exactly.

Judge for yourselves.

If any man be contentious.

You see, this has been said repeatedly, but for some reason it is being overlooked.

It is not a Law issue, or a salvation issue, it is one of Biblical conviction. That is, someone reads the Bible and they believe G-d wants them to do something based on the Scriptures. It is what they understand from the Scriptures to be Biblical truth and that it applies to us (them) today.

This is the exactly the case here.

We are to read the Word of G-d where Paul makes very plain statements concerning that it is a shame for a man to have long hair and woman to have short hair.

We are to seek the L-rd and let Him lead us in how that applies to us and our household.

We are NOT to be contentious about it. We are not to argue against it and fight against it, but simply submit.

As for your statements and the ones from others that because we have differing views we must not talk about this issue, I'm sorry, but that's not Scriptural or even necessary. Simply because someone doesn't agree with you, you say to quit talking about it? Again, I'm sorry, but that's not your place or mine to dictate that, especially on a DISCUSSION board.

I mean, it's what we do here!

If anyone gets into this type of discussion and expects everyone to agree with them, they are sadly mistaken. That's also a wrong motive for discussion. Differing views in the Body is not necessarily a bad thing and it does not mean division, at least it doesn't have to if we share those differing views with grace and respect for the views, as I have said from the beginning. It is simply "iron sharpening iron."

If anyone is offended by someone disagreeing with them and wishes to cease participating in a conversation, it is as simple as dropping out. But, no one has the right to insist that everyone else quit talking about it if they desire to continue.

[Vickilynn]

Please demonstrate how you are seeing nature teach this. And then how do you justify that when Paul finishes his discussion with an admonition that no such custom (of any sort) is in the churches.

Shalom Martin,

It has been said before but I will say it again.

#1. Nature teaches us that men are to look like men and women are to look like women. When men and women mix up the way they look and try to look like each other, it goes against the way they were made "NATURE" and it is wrong.

#2. As I study the Scriptures, it is clear that the thing that we "have no such custom" about is being "contentious". It is read as that, not as you all are saying that there is no such custom regarding the hair. The hair admonition is clear and plain, right from Paul's words. It is not a custom for Christians to be contentious about these things!

I hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from.

[Guest LadyC]

yes, a conviction issue... whose conviction vickilynn, yours, or God's? men with long hair are being disobedient to your convictions, not to the conviction placed on them by the Holy Spirit. they aren't being contentious with God, but with your judgement of their righteousness.

you are a literalist. so i must assume that you think matthew 13th is instructions for farming.

[firehill]

Nature

sn Paul does not mean nature in the sense of "the natural world" or "Mother Nature." It denotes "the way things are" because of God's design.

phusis {foo'-sis}

1) nature

a) the nature of things, the force, laws, order of nature

1) as opposed to what is monstrous, abnormal, perverse

2) as opposed what has been produced by the art of man: the natural branches, i.e. branches by the operation of nature

b) birth, physical origin

c) a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature d) the sum of innate properties and powers by which one person differs from others, distinctive native peculiarities, natural characteristics: the natural strength, ferocity, and intractability of beasts

You said, 'It denotes "the way things are" because of God's design.' Where is such a view even implied within the various meanings above? What do you mean by 'God's design?'

[Vickilynn]

good comparison. It is so sad that probably 90% of Christians today don't know how to study Scripture. Instead we have a lot of helicopter theology swooping in, plucking out pieces of sentences and chapters, expecting those few words to stand alone. The Bible is not mystical. It must be read in context with thoughtfulness.

Shalom Martin,

IMHO, These are the types of comments that cause division and hurt feelings and offense.

Why not simply post your views and interact with others without denigrating them for their beliefs? This is how to have a discussion in mature Christian grace and respect.

[Vickilynn]

yes, a conviction issue... whose conviction vickilynn, yours, or God's? men with long hair are being disobedient to your convictions, not to the conviction placed on them by the Holy Spirit. they aren't being contentious with God, but with your judgement of their righteousness.

you are a literalist. so i must assume that you think matthew 13th is instructions for farming.

Shalom LadyC,

Actually, I don't see that there is a sincere question in there, you'd just rather insult me for my views.

If you do wish to interact with me on a sincere level, I am happy to do so. But, I don't see anything here to discuss since there is no grace, simply because I don't agree with you. Now that's sad to me.

BTW, I am not anything but a Christian.

Oh, and please be careful assuming. It always gets you into trouble.

[OopsMartin]

Please demonstrate how you are seeing nature teach this. And then how do you justify that when Paul finishes his discussion with an admonition that no such custom (of any sort) is in the churches.

Shalom Martin,

It has been said before but I will say it again.

#1. Nature teaches us that men are to look like men and women are to look like women. When men and women mix up the way they look and try to look like each other, it goes against the way they were made "NATURE" and it is wrong.

#2. As I study the Scriptures, it is clear that the thing that we "have no such custom" about is being "contentious". It is read as that, not as you all are saying that there is no such custom regarding the hair. The hair admonition is clear and plain, right from Paul's words. It is not a custom for Christians to be contentious about these things!

I hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from.

I understand where you are coming from. Been there, done that. Don't agree anymore.

1. A. HOW does nature go about teaching that men are to look like men. What does nature do that demonstrates a manly appearance. I mean really all males have certain features that a woman doesn't share. But what has this to do with hair length.

1. B. agreed! Trying to look like the opposite sex is exactly what Paul's point is. However, again..... precise hair length is not part of the equation. Since you think hair below the ears on men is an indication of femininity, please explain how you prove that in nature. How is long hair on males indicative of gender confusion?

2. preposterous. Being contentious is not the subject. The subject is propriety and what constitute propriety in church meetings. But if you want to be contentious about that, we still have no specific customs of attire for men and women in our universal body of Christ. What we do have are varying cultural appearances that indicate more masculine and more feminine. We do not want to mix those up deliberately as that is offensive and shameful.

[Eliyahuw]

Please demonstrate how you are seeing nature teach this. And then how do you justify that when Paul finishes his discussion with an admonition that no such custom (of any sort) is in the churches.

Shalom Martin,

It has been said before but I will say it again.

#1. Nature teaches us that men are to look like men and women are to look like women. When men and women mix up the way they look and try to look like each other, it goes against the way they were made "NATURE" and it is wrong.

#2. As I study the Scriptures, it is clear that the thing that we "have no such custom" about is being "contentious". It is read as that, not as you all are saying that there is no such custom regarding the hair. The hair admonition is clear and plain, right from Paul's words. It is not a custom for Christians to be contentious about these things!

I hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from.

This is pauls OPINION, not Christs admonition. Kinda like the redneck wannabe's that get hired on at the sherrifs department abusing their authority based on the length of my hair.

I get no conviction, no guilt feeling for it being long as it doesn't matter. Its hair.

I like it long, i like it short. I prefer it long for several reasons of which saving money is one, No 10-15 bucks for haircuts, My girlfriend likes it long, It's not cold in the winter time, Same reason i wear a beard. And i have no problem with people distinguishing whether or not i am a male or not.

So Paul was a redneck basically. Doesn't make him right all the time.

[Vickilynn]

I understand where you are coming from. Been there, done that. Don't agree anymore.

Shalom Martin,

And that is your right. I'm not trying to get anyone to agree with my understanding of the Scripture. It really isn't my motive. You have to seek the L-rd for yourself. So, the fact that you don't agree is irrelevant.

[exrockstar]

ineffectual dodge.

1. judge for yourselves

2. doesn't nature teach

3. we've no such customs

Judge for yourselves is an admonishment to think, consider, figure it out. Nature teaching is a question we are to answer as we are figuring it out for ourselves. There being no such customs means it doesn't matter in the end all what our individual conclusions are because there are no universal rules about it.

so, the question still remains for those whose figuring includes women having hair longer than shoulder length, and men's hair above the ears. How do you see nature teaching it should be that way.

its not a dodge. i told you that i would make it as homework.

however, although we keep saying "Paul said" "Paul meant" "Paul wrote for..."

at least say that it's God's word. at least involve "the Holy Spirit inspired Paul."

i am not in the position to tell you what "nature" he's talking about and that's why I said

it'll be homework.

Can I say it's the same "nature" that puts a woman down when she sleeps with alot of men but when a man sleeps with

many women "it's not as bad?" I don't know.

Is it the same "nature" that men should be bread winners? i dont know

Is it the same nature that says women should only wear lipstick and it's odd for a man to do it? I dont know.

Whatever it is...Paul said something that was interesting.

Call it custom, call it Paul "judging," call it Paul making a personal opinion,

call it whatever but call it the Word of God that demands a little investigation. ... 3xR0c|<stAr