new thread
I found myself shaking my head so much that I could not read this. House of David came to mind, but due to their shady nature they can't be a direct contradiction.
I cant believe that a group of people who claim tolerance and love of humankind would spend such energy on being hateful
http://www.bmi.net/paulsonm/HairIntro.html
So it's a surprise to you that many xtian churches (particularly down here in the south, it seems) are full of intolerant bigots? Where on earth have you been hiding? This is nothing particularly new- they sound exactly like many of the folks where I grew up.
MJ
I'm less concerned about their attitude about long hair as I am about their attitude toward women! Good ol' Baptists for ya.
Oh yeah, the lines about women having to have long hair to show their submission and stuff that "woman was created for the man" (implying as a servant). Basically, if that pastor told that to one female acquaintance of mine, he would probably be hospitalized right after the fact :O)
No joke. My wife would probably take her long, long braid of hair and whip *him* into submission. I apologize if I seem disrespectful, but it's because I can't abide seeing half the planet regarded with such appalling condescension. I believe my wife was indeed created for me, but I believe equally that I was also created for her. We're partners, not master and servant, and in any case, our hair has nothing to do with the type and quality of our relationship.
Kay
Hey, forget about this guys attitude toward women, hove you seen the part on his site about what he calls "race mixing"? oh my my my, I believe that this guys has been given WAY too much time and effort on this board....I'm a christian, and I'm gonna be praying for this guy...he needs help.
What's really sad about this is they are chasing people away from what is IMHB a good thing, but so TERRIBLY misrepresented here.
Just more proof that we have to find our own....
Unfortunately there are so called "Christians" out there that distort the Bible and drag Christ's name through the mud by what comes out of there mouth. The same Bible this preacher is using also says that if anyone imposes regulations i.e., head coverings (veils) or the length of hair on someone and it causes divisions and strife they are null and void. The apostle Paul would have blasted this preacher for being so divisive over the issue of one's hair length.
alright, i can be silent no longer. let me begin by saying i am a Christian, grew up in a Christian home, and have always considered a relationship with God to be an extrememly important part of my life. dare i say, i am even baptist. . .dare i say further, i graduated from a baptist seminary. . .with masters degrees even! and had hair as long as the Lord Himself the whole time.
while i will certainly acknowledge that there are many "church folk," "Christians", etc. that freak out over men with long hair, i must say that the church i am currently attending, (yes, it is in the South) seems to care less about mine. NOT ALL CHRISTIANS ARE ALIKE. yes, there are people, like the gentleman who runs the site below, that haven't a clue. i truly feel sorry for him and others like him because, as some of you said, he will do more harm than good. and as far as women go, NOT EVERY BAPTIST CHURCH FEELS THIS WAY. there are many Baptist churches, (and i hate singling them out here) that have women on staff, female ministers? yes!
so please don't lump them all together. . .personally i feel God/Christ/Jesus is more concerned with the condition of your heart, than the length of your hair.
Boy!! Am I grateful to hear this! For a second there I thought they would be lumped in with those damned bhuddists!! Their god has a shaved head!! I couldn't go for that! Then again, there are the Jews to consider. They have to wear hats all the time - and we all know that causes baldness! I suppose it could be worse though, I mean if you were a Sikh, or something like, that you would have to keep your hair wrapped up in a turban all the time - then what would the point be of growing it out in the first place??
Yup, I am really relieved to know that religion isn't just about appearances! It isn't about how well dressed you are when you go to church, how nice your custom embossed bible looks, nor how pious you appear to everyone else. That it is actually about how you live your life, treat yourself, and treat others - appearances be damned. I guess however, that is too simple a thing for some to get. Well, I'm relieved that ain't so on this board!!
'Scuse the rant folks, I am only just now nursing my first cuppa joe and I'm not quite firing on all cylinders this morning.
Madoc
My site. Warning! Gay/ Bi content! Nothing x-rated, just that I like guys too!
Madoc wrote in part (so anything in my answer that offends you must be his fault):
----
A couple of months ago, while shopping for xmas gifts at Bed, Bath and Beyond, I ran across something called an "Aquis Hair Turban." It's basically a cap made of super absorbant material that you put on when you get out of the shower or after shampooing, and you wrap your hair inside it to make a turban. It has a button in the back, so it's really easy to form, and it stays in place. The superabsorbant fabric sucks up enough water that your hair is nearly dry within just a few minutes. I bought it for myself and I love it.
Even so, whenever I put it on, my wife always gives me a ration about looking like the "Breck Girl." Finally, I thought of a comeback line that set the proper tone -- and had the effect on her that I was hoping for:
"I'm not the Breck Girl; I'm a Sikh!
Wanna see my dikh?"
I've probably offended some of the Sikhs among us, but that certainly wasn't my intent. After all, why would anyone want to irritate a whole group of dudes who carry daggers? Best to all,
. . . JP in san diego.
p.s. (it's pronounced "DEEK")
Hey! Wait a minute!!!
Quick drying or not, personally, I think your comments are all wet!!
(Sorry, just had to say that! It was just too obvious not to!)
;P
Oh man! Is that ever a groaner!
How much is this "Aquis Hair Turban?" I do not own a hair dryer and really would prefer not to have to subject my hair to such abuse. However, as it is getting much longer these days, I recognize the need for a faster way of drying my mop than simply letting the water evaporate.
Thanks for letting us know about this product. It was worth it even with the groaners!
Madoc
My site. Warning! Gay/ Bi content! Nothing X-rated, just that I like guys too!
I just did a quick check online and found it offered for $25 and for $18.95. When I bought mine (Bed, Bath & Beyond), it was on sale, and I *think* it was $14.95, but I'm not real sure. In any case, it looks like one of those things that can benefit from a little judicious shopping. Best regards.
. . . JP in san diego.
JP, thanks. Here is the URL to the Aquis page on the BB&B site:
http://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/product.asp?SKU=10098696
Every place I've seen it, the turban and the towel sell for the same price. The turban is (IMHO) the better deal, since I've got a big head and little manual dexterity. If I've done this right, there should be a link to the Aquis company's page that has a pic of the turban -- and a small diagram showing how to put it on.
. . . JP in san diego.
These verses are so contradictory.
>Rev 9:1-8 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
Presumably God gave the angle the key to the bottomless pit.
>2: And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.
>3: And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.
Who gave them the power? God, the angle or Satan?
>4: And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
Who commanded them? Good, the angle or Satan?
>5: And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
>6: And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.
>7: And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.
>8: And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.
>Look at verses 7 and 8. Those creatures from the bottomless pit had faces like men and hair like women. Hasn't the Anti-Christ has done a good job preparing the world for his buddies!
Now, who are these locusts serving? God, the angle or Satan?
To sum up: The eight verses above seem to be saying that an angel (presumably of God) releases locusts (presumable Satan's) from hell and they obey (presumably) the angel's command to attack and torment men (what about women?) who don't have the mark of God upon them.
I used to be a Buddhist, since I believed it to be a logical and rational philosophy of life (BTW. only Buddhist monks shave their heads, otherwise anything goes) but after many years, I realised that Karl Marx was right after all -- religion is the opium of the masses.
Charles
1Corinthians 2:14, "But people who aren't Christians can't understand these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them because only those who have the Spirit can understand what the Spirit means."
No, it sounds foolish because it is. Obviously any group could use this little chestnut- "you don't understand it because you don't believe it." Which is bs. I don't have to believe in gravity- it's there and can be objectively proven. Religion is not provable, and therefore can only be believed by suspending critical thought. I have a quick test for determining if an argument is reasonable- if someone from an antagonistic viewpoint used it, would I accept it? If not, I don't think it's reasonable for me to use it. Would you find it reasonable if a Muslim used a similar argument? How about a Jain? A Sikh? A Hindu? Probably not- but don't expect the rest of us to let you get off the hook with that circular argument. You can't quote a source to prove the same source.
But I think we've gone far enough off topic this time, and Victor probably doesn't appreciate his bandwidth being used for theological discussions.
MJ
How can you be absolutely certain that Christianity(religion) is not provable? How can you be absolutely certain that you need to suspend critical thought when examining Christianity? The Bible is not ONE book but consists of 66 books bound together. To use a verse from one book(1Corinthians) to use on another verse in another book (Revelations) is not circular reasoning. How can you be absolutely certain that reason should be the ultimate authority in judging the claims of the Bible? Here's a circular argument: My reason is my ultimate authority because it seems reasonable to me to make it so. Or another circular argument would be: The findings of human sensory experiences (i.e., gravity) are the ultimate authority for discovering what is real and what is not. Because our human senses have never discovered anything else. Thus, human sense experience tells me that my principle is true. You haven't escaped circular reasoning yourself.
I'm not absolutely certain of anything- my beliefs are always subject to change as I find new evidence. And you don't have to suspend thought when examining any particular religion- but in choosing one over another, you certainly must, since so far as I am aware all of them make untestable claims.
Yup, and many of them are mutually contradictory. For instance, one claims that christ was born in the reign of Herod (slaughter of the innocents and all that), who died in 4 BCE. Another claims that christ's pregnant mother was on her way with her husband to bethlehem for the Roman census- which didn't occur until Rome took direct control of the jewish state, which was in 6 AD. However, I don't think it is particularly unreasonable to categorize the new testament books as 'one source' since they were either largely written by a group of people who all knew each other (the apostles) in the traditional view, or (modern biblical scholar view) written at divergent times by different people, each one drawing on the work of the ones before him. Either way, that isn't an independent list of sources.
I should point out that I am not a rationalist, in the pure philosophical terminology, which is to say one who believes that all truths are ultimately obtainable by reason. I am more of an empiricist. The basic principles I operate under are logical consistency (a true argument cannot contradict itself, which i believe most religions do) and Occam's razor (and probably a few others, but I can't recall them offhand). And as for the bit about reason, sensory experience, etc.- I use reason and sensory experiences because they are a common ground that all competing ideas can appeal to. If I claim (as several groups have) to be able to see and manipulate human energy fields that are invisible to anyone else and use them to heal people, you have no way of knowing if I can see the fields- but you can certainly check my 'patients' and see if there is any significant clinical effect distinguishable from placebo. Likewise, religions make claims to special knowledge unavailable to the rest of us. I have no way of examining their intuitive knowledge (although, in the case of xtianity, I know for certain that I had no such special knowledge in my xtian days); all I can do is check how well their claims measure up against observed effects.
In the interest of conserving bandwidth for hair related discussions rather than philosophical ones, please email me if you wish to pursue the discussion. Thanks.
MJ
Sorry, I've been away from this discussion for a while but that is the standard answer I'd expect and have heard it many times before from various Christian evangelists trying to win me over.
At the service where my cousin got married, the Roman Catholic priest said something to the effect that Jesus' message is for the simple folk who believe according to faith and not for the intellectuals, whose heads are filled with philosophies.
So, it seems rather odd, that according to Christian belief, God gave man intelligence to be able to reason but when man uses his reason to try and analyse the messages in the Bible and even to understand God, is something to be discredited.
On the subject of what the Bible says about long hair on men, there are contradictory positions on this matter, which people with different agendas pick upon to support their case.
On the broader front, the very fact that Christianity most probably has more denominations and sects than other religions, each of them holding dear to one or another contradictory point, somewhere among the 66 books of the Bible.
If the Bible is the word of God and serves as an aid to help people learn about him and achieve salvation, the worst thing God or man can do is to make it confusing to the very men and women, God wants to save, since the more people who can understand it, the more will there be who accept his word.
Anyway, as I've experienced before, this type of discussion can go on and on in circular fashion without end.
Charles
Uh... "Men should keep their combs in their back pockets and women should keep theirs in their purses"....? Biblical men didn't wear pants with pockets; they wore robes (dresses). Throw that one at 'em and watch 'em splutter.
If they really think masculinity is measured by a bald head, then they can just check out the one I have tucked in my pants.
Kay the Irritated