how about y opinion about man with long hair?

[nebula]

This doesn't support what you said at all. You said it was nature that taught it was a shame and not God, but by having the word "even" before the word "nature," it leaves room for the obvious that God does consider it a shame in addition to nature. After all, it is his Word.

No comprendo, senor.

You told me that God was not the one that said it was a shame for a man to have long hair, nature did. You were leaving out the word "even" that came before nature, implying that someone or something besides nature agreed with nature that it was a shame for a man to have long hair. My ascertion is that someone is God, since the Bible is his written Word.

Your interpretation claims Paul was stating long hair from the beginning.

My interpretation claims that, like the passage declares, covering means "covering".

[Guest Butero]

This doesn't support what you said at all. You said it was nature that taught it was a shame and not God, but by having the word "even" before the word "nature," it leaves room for the obvious that God does consider it a shame in addition to nature. After all, it is his Word.

No comprendo, senor.

You told me that God was not the one that said it was a shame for a man to have long hair, nature did. You were leaving out the word "even" that came before nature, implying that someone or something besides nature agreed with nature that it was a shame for a man to have long hair. My ascertion is that someone is God, since the Bible is his written Word.

Your interpretation claims Paul was stating long hair from the beginning.

My interpretation claims that, like the passage declares, covering means "covering".

Are you willing to go through the entire passage on your own and explain it? Since you don't agree with how I intepreted it, I would be interested in understanding how you interpret it going verse by verse.

By the way, that may be what you believe, but your comment showed a bias. You stated that you desired to "chip away at legalism" and even Charitow must have believed you had a bias because rather than say you were not, she accused me of also being biased.

[Guest Butero]

This doesn't support what you said at all. You said it was nature that taught it was a shame and not God, but by having the word "even" before the word "nature," it leaves room for the obvious that God does consider it a shame in addition to nature. After all, it is his Word.

No comprendo, senor.

You told me that God was not the one that said it was a shame for a man to have long hair, nature did. You were leaving out the word "even" that came before nature, implying that someone or something besides nature agreed with nature that it was a shame for a man to have long hair. My ascertion is that someone is God, since the Bible is his written Word.

Your interpretation claims Paul was stating long hair from the beginning.

My interpretation claims that, like the passage declares, covering means "covering".

If I were to accept what you just said, then I would have to come to the conclusion that churches that require women to wear head coverings are right.

[Guest Butero]

so the point of this discussion would be.....?

I suppose it would be to determine if a man with long hair is a shame and if he dishonors his head?

It would also be to determine if a woman has short hair, if it is a shame and dishonors her head?

Just so we are clear, Paul is referring to spiritual headship, not the thing that sits on top of your neck.

Just to be clear, that is your view, not mine. I believe he is saying that the thing that sits on top of your neck is an outward sign of submission or rebellion.

[Guest Butero]

How does Paul define long hair? What's too long?

He doesn't give a definate measurement, which means he leaves it up to us to use common sense. As I said earlier, if I was to point to pictures of men and women, and ask someone if the hair is long or short, I would get an opinion. In the in-between cases, there might be some disagreements, but on the more extreme ones, there would be almost universal agreement. People understand long verses short.

[nebula]

I don't care if a man has long hair or a woman has short hair. I just know what the Bible says about it.

Have you ever seen African women, Butero?

Have you ever seen a pure-blooded African woman with long hair?

Or their girls?

They do not have it in their DNA to have their hair grow any longer.

So what do you tell these women?

[nebula]

Are you willing to go through the entire passage on your own and explain it?

I don't have time.

But as I said, if I went through it, I would explain everything in terms of "covering."

What you said about authority, I have no problem with.

But when I got to the part about hair length, I'd just repeat what I already said.

I do not see how you think by breaking down verses a different conclusion or explanation would or could be drawn.

[Guest Butero]

so the point of this discussion would be.....?

There are only two reasons I care about this debate.

1) I grew up trained to be legalistic. The Lord had to embarrass the daylights out of me as a means of beginning to break that. I now can see legalism for what it is, and I can see why it is destructive. So, I am chipping away at legalism.

2) I have a heart for the Native Americans. Listening to Native Americans who are ministers of the Gospel, they will tell you how much disgrace and bondage was brought to their people on account of this issue.

Aren't you telling me that you are coming into this debate with a pre-conceived bias and that you are going to fight to make it say what you desire it to say?

as are you butero, my friend!

Based on what? I don't care if a man has long hair or a woman has short hair. I just know what the Bible says about it. I could say the same thing on a lot of other issues as well. Take homosexuals. I have no personal reason to care about homosexual marriage, outside the fact the Bible states God created marriage to be between a man and a woman. My views come from my honest interpretation of scripture. Let's get even more extreme. I don't like slavery. I don't want to see slavery going on anywhere in the world, but I know God allowed for slavery under certain situations and regulations, and there is at least one example in the New Testament. I am more open than most think, which is why I have what comes across as extreme views on a variety of issues. I accept what the Bible says without question, even when it goes against my own pre-conceived ideas. I got into a heated fight defending something that of my own self I didn't care about, but it mattered only to defend the integrity of scripture.

methinks thou dost protest too much!

integrity of Scripture as far as you understand it? or integrity of Scripture as to the truth of what it says? those may be the same thing; they may be different. could you be wrong? and if so, would you admit it?

Absolutely I would admit it. I have had to adjust my opinions many times over the years. I have almost done a 180 on Calvanism verses Arminianism. That is a pretty radical change. I went from dogmatic that there was a rapture to open to the possibility there is not one till after the tribulation. I have changed my view on make-up and jewelry. I went from dogmatic that the bride of Christ was the church to accepting the possibility it is New Jerusalem. I went from believing in an age of accountablity to believing that children of believers are under their parent's covering. I believe I am much more open to the possibility of being wrong than you are.

[Guest Butero]

Are you willing to go through the entire passage on your own and explain it?

I don't have time.

But as I said, if I went through it, I would explain everything in terms of "covering."

What you said about authority, I have no problem with.

But when I got to the part about hair length, I'd just repeat what I already said.

I do not see how you think by breaking down verses a different conclusion or explanation would or could be drawn.

You never know what might bring about a revelation? I have been in discussions before where I was at odds with someone else and something happened where we both found out we were wrong. That was after page upon page of heated discussion and after several threads.

[Guest Butero]

I don't care if a man has long hair or a woman has short hair. I just know what the Bible says about it.

Have you ever seen African women, Butero?

Have you ever seen a pure-blooded African woman with long hair?

Or their girls?

They do not have it in their DNA to have their hair grow any longer.

So what do you tell these women?

Perhaps they do and perhaps they don't have the ability to grow their hair long? There are a lot of African-American women with long hair today, and that didn't used to be the norm. Just to help you out though, there are also women that lose their hair. Obviously that is no fault of their own. Remember this Nebula. We are not talking about a sin issue, but something the Bible refers to as a shame, so it is not on the same level of importance of some other issues. I believe we should simply do our best to follow this teaching.