new thread
I recently found a church website talking bad about long-haired men. The church webpage (which I absolutely disagree with) is here:
I think this line sums up the stupidity of this article
"Many popular pictures of Jesus that were painted in relatively recent times, have perpetuated the satanic idea that Jesus wore long hair."
So long hair = Satan
That is a new one i haven't heard b4...
Ok, fair enough, Jesus probably had short hair and they made their points but the author is very anti-male longhair. Very biased.
FWIW, I think that anyone who justifies long hair on men "by stating that Jesus Christ wore long hair" is on very shaky ground. Its much better to point out that long hair on men is never opposed anywhere in scripture. Someone should also remind the author of that page that the phrase "IF A MAN HAVE LONG HAIR IT IS A SHAME UNTO HIM" is not a simple statement, but part of a question.
This is such a nonsense and it is sad to know that many people beleive it. (I mean the men hair part)
Hello everyone,
Diatribes against long hair are not new: In 1653, Pastor Thomas Hall, a roundhead as one would have called him in those days, wrote a long diatribe titled "The Loathesomeness of Long Haire". He rants and raves about men spending more time in the "Barber's Shoppe" rather than in church. He condemns "lovelocks", a hairstyle where hair is grown shoulder-length, except that one lock grows a few inches longer, bound by a ribbon. All matter of long hair on men is condemned, and if the English were modern English, you almost get exactly what you get in those right-wing Christian fundamentalist web sites.
There is a copy of Thomas Hall's Diatribe in a book called "Fashion in Hair", a thick encyclopedia of hairstyles from antiquity to today. The book is not on sale since it is out of print, but can be found in public or university libraries.
Have a nice day,
Georges in Montreal.
Ok,
Here's my take on it. Firstly, Paul the Apostle wrote a lot of controversal stuff, some of which I believe were his own view of things. He even admits to injecting his own personal thoughts into some of his writings, in that same letter -
1Cr 7:6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
Unfortunately, Paul was influenced by a society that held backward views, such as this one & those that regarded females as inferior.
Thankfully, Jesus was a cool dude who regarded us all as equal.. And I believe he DID have long hair. There is overwhelming evidence to show that the Shroud of Turin was the real burial cloth of Jesus and you can see that the figure on the Shroud HAD long hair.
Besides, if the God of the Bible didn't approve of long hair, then why did he command Samson in the OT never to cut his hair?
I decided to play devil's advocate with the author of the article with the following e-mail: Dear E.L. Bynum,
I was recently sent a link to your article about Jesus not having long hair. It is my belief that there is no conclusive evidence that he did or did not have long hair. To make a claim in either direction is based purely on supposition. I understand that you have presented much in the way of historical background, however, since I am not aware of any living portraits of Jesus when He was alive, it leads me to believe that long hair was a possibility.
More importantly I am wondering as to why you have such a strong distaste towards men with long hair. To me it appears that you might even feel insulted by the notion that Jesus could ever have long hair simply becasue St. Paul denounces it. This is a concept of Lutheranism that I have never understood. Out of the numerous books in the Bible, Protestants hold Paul's letters to be the most important. The Bible is not inerrant. It is riddled with inaccuracies most of which are resultant of errors in translations. You even mentioned that you "have never seen a bald headed woman". Do a google search for bald women and you will find tens of thousands of sites devoted to women who willingly shave their heads. You even claim that nature teaches us that men are supposed to be bald and yet there are roughly 30 million women in the United States alone that are showing sign ificant signs of baldness. You seem so outraged by men with long hair that one might this that you believe longhair to be the most egregious sin known to man. If you truly want to use the "nature" excuse then nature dictates that hair continues to grown until it reaches terminal length. Is there something morally wrong with long hair on men? Sins are generally perceived to be wrong in the eyes of society. Long hair on men may not be wholeheartedly accepted by the world, but it is also not viewed as a crime with the exception of countries that are governed by religious extremists. The real issue here is as to why God would find something wrong with long hair on men. Think about this from a logical point of view. Additionally, can you prove that the Biblical writters, especially Paul whose specialty is making outrageous statements, were truly inspired by the Holy Spirit. From my responses you can obviously tell th at I am Catholic and definitely not a fundamentalist. I believe that the Bible is meant to be taken contextually. I await your response.
His rather inadequate response was:Dear Sir,
The difference between our views is this: I believe that the bible is God's infallible message and that there are no errors in it. Therefore what Paul wrote is just as if Jesus said it while He was here on earth.
No I do not believe that long hair is the worst sin, but it is wrong according to the bible. I hold no ill will toward you. I only proclaim the truth as I see it, and each person will have to believe or disbelieve.
May God bless you with His wonderful truth.
E. L. Bynum
And this is what i will write to him:
"I believe the Bible is full of lies, just like you"
Ah! that would make me feel so releifed! One freak down plenty to go.
How pathetic, this man's jaded perceptions merely reinforce the evident fallacies of faith based institutions.
He follows the same path of many 'holy' men including Paul who state biased perceptions and pass them off as truth. Then ridicule any opposition by saying it is your choice to decide to believe or disbelief.
Such arrogance, how can any open minded intellectual embrace any such passage or law as truth? In the end many philosophers have reached the same conclusion that truth is impossible to attain because it remains subjective.
Ponder the situation of the US's Army of One, today I was once again confronted by a representative pushing his agenda and join the military. I told him that despite his or any of his comrades intentions if he takes a life then he commits murder. No law or simple justification can remove this label. After all a mother who steals for her starving children steals still and the law shows know mercy. So why then is an organization devoted to the death and suffering of others praised?
The answer is because we perceive them as heroes in the same manner that the children would see their mother in a different light than the law.
Also how can this man or any other have the gall to claim what Yeshoua looked like? Simply by comparing the busts and renditions of those that lived in the period does not suffice as evidence. After all short hair was a roman fashion and did not extend to from Europe to Asia.
Someone needs to tell this dillusional and religious zealot to face history and realize that the following is fact:
Zoroaster of Persia influences the Israelites who implement ideas of dichotomy; Hell and Heaven, God and Satan, Ahura Mazda and Angru Mainyu (sp?).
Subsequently the Romans spread Christianity denouncing the teachings of Israel, essentially defacing and raping their ancient tradition.
The concept of a trinity exists first in Hindu belief of the three aspects of Brahman.
So tell me how does this infallible God allow millions of his so called children to die in a Hell that does not exist for thousands of years and then permits countless iterations of his glorious gospel to further cause dissention and encite countless warfare between incompatible cultures who essentially belief in this same God but call him by different names?
I would so soon as worship a latinized name of a jewish God as I would the more sound religions of India, Japan, or better yet the many shamanistic cultures of Europe.
I'm no expert on this particular piece of it, but I thought the trinity concept came from the pagan/Wiccan triple goddess idea.
But frankly, I find much of this, while not new or surprising, repulsive and psychotically fundamentalist. I mean, if the guy wants to take the passage literally, that's his deal - but it never once seems to occur to him that it could've been mistranslated, or have a figurative meaning. Perhaps scripture is not meant to be read with the scientific eye/faith blended with science, but still...
And then if one were to switch religions, suddenly this passage no longer exists and it's all right to have long hair? What a fickle world, indeed.
The only Christian justification I see for men not having long hair and it still growing is that it could be seen as a lifelong (until baldness anyway), testing commitment to following God, but it just seems so...silly. Why should hair be such a mortal offense?
Seeing as Christianity "borrows" a vast amount from older pagan religions, which makes me question its authenticity, I believe at least some of its apparent negativity for long hair on men comes from pagan traditions of wearing the hair in fairly elaborate styles. Some conservative writers may not have liked how feminine such styles looked, and commented upon it. *shrugs* Who really knows but the Big Guy, huh?
And frankly, who cares whether Jesus had shoulder-length hair, a polka-dotted lilac mohawk or a dusty bald head? What should matter is his teachings, not his appearance. I was taught that Jesus accepted everyone equally, including the lepers and the infirmed and/or "repulsive" people; why can't the Christians with pages like this?
Seeing as religon is a hot topic on forums, I apologize if anything I said came across as offensive.
Sorry, but this one just pushes one of my buttons. The US military is NOT an "organization devoted to the death and suffering of others". It is an organization dedicated to the defense of the United States. It would be wonderful if such organizations were not necessary, but in the real world, there are far too many people ready to take what they want by force, or to force their views and beliefs on others by violence. I for one am not willing to stand by and let that happen. I believe there are things worth defending, up to and including the use of deadly force, when required.
Would you prefer that we disband all military and police forces? In that case, I hope you don't mind when criminals, terrorists and religious fanatics either take or destroy the things you've worked to build, harm those you hold dear, and/or force you to live your life they way *they* think you should. Because sometimes the only thing that stops people like that from doing these things is someone willing to say "this will not happen" and willing to do whatever is required to stop it, including the use of force.
Jim
(Aviation Electronics Technician First Class, United States Navy, Retired [and damned proud of it])
A couple of pertinent quotes:
The moral difference between a soldier and a civilian is that the soldier accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member. The civilian does not. - Robert Heinlein
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. - John Stuart Mill ~ (1868)
"War is as much a punishment to the punisher as it is to the sufferer."
—Thomas Jefferson
"The guns and the bombs, the rockets and the warships, are all symbols of human failure."
—Lyndon B Johnson
"YOUNG MEN: The lowest aim in your life is to become a soldier. The good soldier never tries to distinguish right from wrong. He never thinks; never reasons; he only obeys. If he is ordered to fire on his fellow citizens, on his friends, on his neighbors, on his relatives, he obeys without hesitation. If he is ordered to fire down a crowded street when the poor are clamoring for bread, he obeys and see the grey hairs of age stained with red and the life tide gushing from the breasts of women, feeling neither remorse nor sympathy. If he is ordered off as a firing squad to execute a hero or benefactor, he fires without hesitation, though he knows the bullet will pierce the noblest heart that ever beat in human breast.
"A good soldier is a blind, heartless, soulless, murderous machine. He is not a man. His is not a brute, for brutes kill only in self defense. All that is human in him, all that is divine in him, all that constitutes the man has been sworn away when he took the enlistment roll. His mind, his conscience, aye, his very soul, are in the keeping of his officer. No man can fall lower than a soldier—it is a depth beneath which we cannot go."
— Jack London
"They talk about conscription as a democratic institution. Yes; so is a cemetery."
—Rep. Meyer London, Speech in House of Representatives, April 25, 1917
"War! When I but think of this word, I feel bewildered, as though they were speaking to me of sorcery, of the Inquisition, of a distant, finished, abominable, monstrous, unnatural thing.
"When they speak to us of cannibals, we smile proudly, as we proclaim our superiority to these savages. Who are the real savages? Those who struggle in order to eat those whom they vanquish, or those who struggle merely to kill?"
—Guy de Maupassant, Sur l'Eau
You may call me a coward and label be unpatriotic but at least know that I stand for all people regardless of creed and I would rather be a world citizen than be under the limitations and perceptions of one particular nation. To stand for one is to renounce and decredit the other, so how can I call one person brother and another my enemy?
Perhaps it is this isolationist mentality that separates the world and prevents unification. As long as we believe the use of excessive force is necessary the better chance it will be true.
One thing I abhor greatly is the great amount of apathy towards humanity that is a result of excessive capitalism. Indeed all capital whatsoever, lets just extend that to all forms of commercialism. The world is hackneyed composed of cookie-cutter distrticts and a drone-driven economy. And because of its greed and selfish nature contemporary society is banal and listless and every iteration brings us closer to a dismal future until there is nothing that is geniune or brought by innovative device.
You clearly choose the use of the word defense when describing the military. So by that reasoning the countless sects of Muslim extremists are defending their rights and beliefs. See a distinction between the two, because I dont.
I'm terribly sorry if my blatant attitude shocks you but you cannot deny that one man's savior is another's villian.
Killing is still murder in any given situation, even in self defense adding such labels is clearly utilized to sympathize with the murderer.
The US has a military, the most costly one at that and any institution devoted to warfare either by defense or offense still serves one function: murder.
If you would stop sugar-coating the world you would realize that labels are simply connotations. Furthermore if you would accept the fact that weapons, even civilian firearms are designed for killing you would be able to perceive many things in a less tainted light.
And for the record I never said it was necessary or that I villify the military. I am merely addressing the fact that truth and belief is highly subjective. Recall my analogy about the mother who steals? Of course it is done to save her children just as the military may be needed to defend a country but the fact remains that both the mother and the military have broken universal law. No amount of sentimentallity or selective laws will be able to pardon any man who takes the life of another.
One last note, I'm indifferent when it comes to many branches of politics and I could care little if the US declared war on the entire world to implement a world empire. My whole argument is very simple, reconginze that truth is relative and that the military is no better than any other forceful organization such as those in the Middle East. The only reason why OUR military stands in such a positive light is because they belong to us and that their murder of foreigners is perceived as beneficial to the safety of a double-standard nation founded on jaded beliefs.
Where did the many non-land owning citizens and oppresed slaves stand when the constitution was written about two centuries ago? Are all men created equal or are they considered equal based on worldy circumstance? The rich still hold power and lineage determines the worth of a human. Clearly little has changed since the days of upper class nobility in Europe, freedom is progressive and still an ongoing process.
Making claims like that are just as bad as saying "long hair is an abomination to God." Whether YOU like it or not, or chose to accept it or not, your opinion is just that. If YOU chose not to understand the clear and obvious difference between "murder" and "killing" that's your choice. But how dare you, or anyone else, accuse the brave men and women serving this country by putting their lives on the line in its defense. Yes, thats right, defense. You want to get mad at what the government choses to do with its military power, get mad at them, but don't call the people who enlist themselves as MURDERERS because you believe that you are such an authority that you can spout forth your misunderstandings of simple definitions as objective truth.
Hate to sound rude here, and I assume that its coming off that way, but murder means a very specific thing "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." (dictionary.com) Whether you agree with it or not, thats what murder is. The difference between muder and killing can most easily be described by motivation. Who are you to say that when a soldier kills another person his motivation is causing pain and suffering, as opposed to "I want to keep my family and my countrymen able to keep living as much of a free life as possible".
Follow Ups:
Follow Ups:
Follow Ups:
Who are you to say that when a soldier kills another person his motivation is causing pain and suffering, as opposed to "I want to keep my family and my countrymen able to keep living as much of a free life as possible".
That may well be, and the other guy trying to kill him may be thinking the same thing. OTOH, they may be professional soldiers, who may sign up for the best of motives but then have to kill who they are told to.
Yes, civilian firearms are designed for killing; they are weapons, afterall.
But there IS a difference between killing in self-defense and killing to take a life.
Killing to take a life is just that; without acceptable justification. You kill for whatever reason you can think of that is in comtempt of life, including your own.
Killing in self-defense is defending your own life against someone who is so disrespectful of life that the perpetrator is bent on taking it away from you. You value and cherish your own life and know that it is something that must be defended unless there's a good reason to sacrifice it (I.E. saving your significant other from an oncoming car). If you have no other choice to escape a most unfavorable situation, you must kill the attacker to resolve the situation, life and limb intact.
In my opinion, refusing to defend your own life in the event that retreat is not a possibility, including the use of deadly force if that is your only choice, from a deadly threat is tantamount to suicide.
Nobody who prepares for such a possibility wants to take a life, but they understand that they might have to if they run into someone who wants to claim lives. In self defense, the goal is not to hurt others but to keep others from hurting you. This is a bedrock rule in self defense, from using martial arts to using weapons.
Call it what you will, but remember this:
Civility is not measured by passivity, but by a balance of justice and freedom.
By strict definition, self defense is not violent. Self defense is not a perverse and abusive act. This is why I am a strict supporter of the 2nd Amendment. - Reinhart
High!
Angra Mainyu (Avestan: "the evil spirit"), later on transmogrified to "Ahriman"
See you in Khyberspace!
Yadgar
I can't believe Christians even have such strict rules with longhair, i mean i don't mean for this to be an offense to anyone...but i truly think that some religious beliefs are so vague. Why would hair be of such concern in any religion? that is just ridiculous. Hair is only natural and Creater made us with hair.
Heres the thing,
If the guy was serious about following the Bible and being a Christian, he would realize some stuff Jesus said himself. Paraphrasing, these are the two greatest commandments, first love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength; and second love your neighbor as yourself. Those are the biggies, mr. anti-long-hair-pastor-guy. If you're serious about spreading the word of God and leading people to Christ, why don't you get out in the real world and show God's love, instead of using your time to condemn people over something that hurts NO ONE.
To everyone else on the board, please dont use people like this as an example of a Christian. There's so many rediculous, silly, defacating on the word Christianity people out there, and they make it so that people who dont really know about the faith learn to hate it. These people are blantantly wrong and don't understand the big picture...at all. Anyways, like always if anyone ever wants to talk about anything, my AIM is LooKcloser1827. If not, God bless you all, keep growing, and take care!
~Rome
As far as I'm concerned, it's just one more paranoid self-proclaimed scholar who uses his "evidence" to support his own personal opinion about long hair. He sounds intimidated, and even afraid, of men who wear their hair long. It has taken control of him and he speaks in desperation without thinking about the consequences of his words.
Trying to form a logical argument, then resorting to biased (and blatantly incorrect) generalizations such as these, undermines the validity of the argument:
- "Long hair and homosexuality do not always go together, but they are very compatible. They both represent a revolt against God given nature, and against His precious Word."
How many homosexuals wear short or neat hairstyles? How many long haired men are straight? The numbers do not support a link between the two. When they coincide it is due to freedom of choice, something this author seems very uncomfortable with accepting.
- "Parents who allow a son to grow and wear long hair are contributing to a rebellion against God and against our country. This is a sure step in losing control of a child."
Whether historically accurate or not, if it is in the hearts and minds of the “Jesus freaks” that they wear long hair because they BELIEVE Jesus did, then how is that rebelling against God? Isn't any faith based on personal belief more than blind obedience to something that does not seem right? Isn't that what separates genuine believers from those who just go through the motions for acceptance and security?
And how is permitting a child who is willing to be put through all the pressure and opposition and difficulty of growing long hair, because that is what they believe is right for them, “a sure step in losing control” of them? Wouldn't attacking their belief and trivializing their efforts and rejecting them for being true to themselves contribute much more to losing that child than trying to understand and show interest in their decision?
Further quotes that betray this author's selfish motivation for writing this hate message:
- “I HAVE NEVER SEEN A BALD HEADED WOMAN, but I have seen many bald headed men. Very, very few women become bald, and those that do, are careful to conceal it with a wig. This surely must be "nature" teaching us.”
I'm not a scientific expert, so maybe it's not true, but I've seen commercials where “studies show” that women bald as much if not more commonly then men do, but it is seen as a severe thinning as a result of natural hair loss, rather than producing a bald crown. As for a woman concealing her hair loss with a wig, how is that “nature teaching us” about how hair should look on a man or woman? Commercially there is much more emphasis on products that “hide” or “regrow” hair loss in men than women. I think it is nature teaching us that men or women both look younger, healthier, and more attractive with a full head of hair than without, and does not discriminate based on gender.
If anything nature teaches us that if we do not interfere with it, men and women will both grow long hair at the same rate and be indistinguishable IN THAT REGARD. Men will have facial hair as well as more body hair, in order to “define the sex by hair” by natures standards.
- “Among men, the wearing of long hair is now reprobated as a mark of effeminacy and dishonoring to them, in as much as it prevents the free exposure of the countenance.”
So now partially obscuring facial features is wrong for a man but “a natural covering” for a woman? Honestly, a woman's face is her most beautiful asset, so having long hair as a means to obscure it is a disservice to her. A man's face, on the other hand, is naturally obscured by beard growth, so the “free exposure of the countenance” doesn't seem all that crucial to begin with, otherwise we wouldn't grow it in the first place.
- “We believe that Christian Young men, when taught the truth, will want to wear their hair short. Informed Christian's will not want to be identified with the "SHAME" or revolutionary revolt that long hair symbolizes.”
Yes, “teach” them while they're still “Young”, because you know when they're older and can decide for themselves, they'll realize they aren't hearing the “truth”. Honestly, the closing sentence commits several crimes against morality:
- The use of the word “Informed”, implying that if the following is not your true desire, then you must be “Ignorant”, something no one will want to admit to, and might suspend their better judgment to avoid being labeled as, (which is the authors intent).
- “will not want to be identified” - because obviously the author fears the freedom of choice and would feel more comfortable if his opinion was the only valid option left to anyone.
- “(long hair symbolizes SHAME or revolutionary revolt)” - except for those with long hair who do not wear it as a symbol for either. Of course, since the author is incapable of understanding someone who thinks for themselves and has their own individual reasons and beliefs for making any number of personal decisions in life, of which growing long hair is just one example, he has no choice but to make erroneous and close-minded statements that undermine the credibility of his entire argument.
If he had really been trying to “reach” those with long hair in an attempt to influence their decision with historical fact that contradicts the beliefs such a decision is based on, he'd have been much more successful leaving his opinions and biased statements out of it. Apparently he's grown accustomed to doing the thinking for his captive audience, and wasn't able to break his bad habit in this attempt to sway one that is capable of thinking for themselves.
Of course, non of us like this webpage, yadda yadda, adding my name to the chorus here.
Hair propaganda aside, it's not even a very well-written piece. It's sort of random things sloppily pasted together with the assumption that everyone will see the connections they're making.
And historically, Jesus probably didn't even have straight hair, much less long. He also wasn't white. Historically.
why do people constantly bring up Jesus when it comes to long hair? are they attempting to imitate his character or his physical characteristics...?
This one (along with others) comes up every so often. Often enough that I added to the R.A.Q. awhile back.
