new thread
Okay, I have been reading threw this forum alot and I have come to the conclusion that as of a person of faith I should no longer post here. Yes I will continue to grow my hair out and in fact, intend to do so for the rest of my life.
I guess I will find a christian long hair group and join them, this group simply does not meet my faith-requirement.
The reasons I am leaving again [this is not a personal attack to any of you, I believe everyone has the freedom to do what they want with their life] the reasons I am leaving is for the blatantly lack of respect for christians and the anti-christian slant of this forum. Where my evidence you ask? I will post some examples and I will post my response to them. Also, if anyone wants to responde I will check ONLY the reponses to this topic for the next few days, only to be a fair debater and partake in a
discussion to determine if this group really respects those of faith.
Here are some of the posts that make me question this boards tolerance of christians:
August 02: By CTB
"Ask your friend is he anti-homosexual and pro-slavery. Because the Bible's book Deuteronomy is both these things. And the other books? Oh, they encourage rape, wife-beating, genocide, you name it.
I don't mean to be anti-Christian. I just think people should apply logic more often. As humans, we grow a lot of hair on our heads. Many cut it short. Many let it grow long. What's the big deal?
We're rooting for you, Helgast."
MY RESPONSE:
My response is, simply this: Christ is logic and peace, there is NO SUPPORT for rape, wife-beating,genocide or any other of these crimes you accuse christians of supporting.
This is the first attack against me I have witnessed.
Posted by lynx:
"Don't worry about this xian b/s! All they ever say is a lie and their so-called religion is nothing more than piecemeal. They know nothing about nothing and think they have all the answers, when in truth xianity is just a tool to force people to conform to the ruling powers. To be like sheep - their religion even tells them they're sheep and you know what sheep are for? To be eaten by wolves!"
MY RESPONSE:
This is clearly a indication that I am not welcome here as a person of faith. Not only thing but hes proposing that I should be "eaten by wolves"???? How is that tolerant?
Posted by tai fu
"Back in the old days, like Old Testament times, some people made a covenant to God therefore they were not supposed to cut their hair for the duration of the covenant. I think the Bible calls them Naserites. Samson was one, and I think the old testament people regards Naserites to be holy. I believe the verse in 1 Corinthitians were talking of cultural stuff and it is NOT a commandment. In fact the only commandment we should be concerned with as a Christian is Love the Lord with all your soul and whatever, and love others as yourself. I do know for a FACT that this is very hard and probably no one will ever love others as themselves because of our selfish nature, however I really think that Jesus is not concerned about your hair or your sexual orientation, whatever the church might tell you. In fact you should tell the churches to **** off because the church does not decide your salvation, and no amount of "good deed" will save you either. "
You are right in one and only way, YES GOD DOES ALLOW LONG HAIR and it is okay to have long hair, the statement about god being tolerant of ones sexuality however is false, this is not a personal attack on you but rather the truth. I will provide you with scriptures that determine this:
Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."
Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals"
1 Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers"
Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."
This is my official response to the attacks against me, my faith, and the christian community as a whole. If christians ARE NOT WELCOME on the MLHH Board then I will leave with grace.
Homosexuals don’t compare to murderers and kidnappers you cant class homosexuals in the same league as them. There are also a few Christians on this board that are able to put up with criticism, and you should be able to as well. To say people are not allowed to criticise anything is fascism.
Did you not read any of the attacks against us christians? So you are okay with non-christians attacking christians here, but yet you oppose me being polite and bringing up relavent debate topics?
I did read the criticisms of Christianity and I admit they are misinformed about the religion. I have no objection to you bringing this topic up.
Ok, this is a board about hair...so you know how you can solve this? Talk about hair. If you want to argue theory, philosophy, religion....then find a board that serves that purpose....here, we talk about hair. Also, as I saw it atleast, this is a place of aide, not a place for bashing and degrading...so....don't bring up sensitive stuff such as politics and religion. Again, this is about hair.
been waiting for someone to say that. The best reponse to this we can do is to drop it. This discussion created a spark of anger that has ignited a fire of hate. The subject of the board is long hair amongst men, not the distaste some people have with Christians. Every person is entitled to their belief, and has the right to voice it. We can take this two ways; one, we can continue to drag this one, and get more people angry. Or, we can let this post fade into the wind, maybe be more thoughful about our expressions in the future, and get one with our lvies.
Secondly, to tackle an issue that is important, no gay person is in anyway unlawful, sinful, or wrong. I myself am not gay, but I do feel I must express my view on this matter. And per the bible verse, homosexuals and murderers are a long shot from each other. Well, I'll end my rant there.
Peace.
In Christianity, Christians don't agree with Christians. Some Catholics don't agree with the herarchy of their church. In the Episcopal Church, there is an element which is threatening to leave because they consider the rest of the body too liberal. And this is prevealent throughout Christianity and has been for centuries. Go back to the Crusades and it was one group of Christians fighting against another group because of different beliefts. Theologians disagree about scripture and some others proof text scripture to prove their point. Being raised in the Episcopal Church, my viewpoint of Christianity is much different than those raised in a fundamental church. Which denominations teach the truth and which denominations are filled with false teachings? Will we ever know in this lifetime? Hopefully one will not close their mind and will sift through the truths and the untruths and come to the right conclusions and look at the teachings from several denominations and read the different viewpoints of several theologians before coming to their conslusions.
Its not that my religion was attacked that nescasary is bothering me, its that EVERYTHING ELSE IS TABOO TO ATTACK except christianity. That sounds more like fascism to me then me defending myself.
Well now I do see your point. I know how strict the moderation is on this board and now you mention it, it seems odd that they don't have a problem with Christianity being attacked.
Generally we shouldn’t have any censorship. In the context of this board it is odd that they have no problem with attacks against Christianity.
IF you attack anything besides christianity your post will be deleted, however if you attack christians your post will remain!
Perhaps maybe a good solution would be to treat christianity like every other philosophy/religion/anything else, and not allow people to mindlessly flame it? That would indeed allow me to feel way more comfortable here and Im sure would make many christians here feel better.
I do agree on that topic. I see anti-christian flames sprinkled through many people's posts, and yet no comment about it is made, but everything else is taboo. It would be nice if this site was a place for positive encouragement, tips, sharing and such, and thats it. But personal stories seem to come out alot. And when it involves an over zealous Christian, its totally ok to flame the crap out of his faith, rather than just the person who was a jerk. It sucks, but hey man this is America! Every other faith is cool, and christianity is heavily disliked (even though 79% of this country's population considered itself faith-based Christian lol).
I've been posting here for years and this is not true.
R.A.Q.
You guys have a point here. It's one reason I don't post but once in a blue moon. (wonder how many feel the same?)
Intolerance is intolerance no matter what group you choose to allow the intolerance against. To allow intolerance against select groups and not others related to the subect is really nothing less than support for the bias.
How about you don't look for a reason to attack others?
If your idea of being polite is to quote bible verses implying that the behavior of homosexuals (including me and many others here) is an abomination, then you obviously don't know a whole lot about manners, especially since you know there are a fair number of homosexuals who post here.
If you don't agree with what someone else has to say, or if you feel that your religion (or anything else you hold dear) is being attacked, then by all means, you have a right to engage that person in an intelligent debate about it, and try to convince him/her to see your viewpoint. Crying about it in some obviously inflammatory post and threatening that you're going to leave the board because there are "too many people here who don't like Christianity" is both childish and cowardly. If that's really what you want, I'm sure you can find a Christian bulletin board where your viewpoints (about Christianity, anyway) will surely be in the majority. However, the purpose of this board is to be a support site for longhaired men. You must realize that not all men here are going to see eye to eye with you on Christianity, and in fact, many will have issues and negative experiences with Christianity for reasons, many of which have been enumerated in other responses to this thread you have started.
I have already read that you have decided to stay. Good. Just please remember to be respectful of others and their viewpoints, even when others are unintentionally disrespectful of you. (If people are intentionally disrespectful of you, then you should complain to a moderator for violations of the terms of use of this board.) People will often say things in posts that you may take serious issue with. When that happens, you bascially have three choices: 1) Ignore it, and don't say anything. 2) Start your own thread to intentionally attack others. 3) Call them on the issue, and debate, in a mature manner, why you think they might be incorrect or misguided. (Again, write to a moderator if you think someone's post is a flagrant violation of the rules of the board.)
That said, I think we can all agree that the best course is to just get back to discussing long hair, and continuing to treat each other with respect. You do have most excellent curls, after all.
dino
Um, I think boyofcurls has a pretty good point here. Just for a second, assume there was a thread about, say, some ridiculously misinformed and misguided environmentalist telling someone to get a haircut and I posted a reply that said
"Don't worry about this hippie b/s! All they ever say is a lie and their so-called beliefs are nothing more than piecemeal. They know nothing about nothing and think they have all the answers, when in truth environmetnalism is just a tool to force people to conform to the communism. To be like sheep - their belief even tells them they're sheep and you know what sheep are for? To be eaten by wolves!"
Wouldn't that just be ridiculous? If that post had been about a misguided (insert anything other than "Christian" here), it would never have been accepted. It doesn't matter if it is in the context of a discussion about a religion, political party, or lifestyle, there is a line between criticism and hatred, and it has been crossed several times recently. Criticism is one thing, blind hatred is another.
I have no blind hatred against Christianity, but I am critical about it, as with most things in life.
Hello Boyofcurls,
As one of the moderators here, I approved of this thread; but with considerable hesitation... And, it's quite possible / probable that it will be yanked from the board at any time, because these kind of posts tend to get out-of-hand...
The "regulars" who post here come from all kinds of backgrounds, --- both from a faith-based perspective, and a NON faith-based persoective. To accuse the whole group of not making you feel welcome is rather a bold, broad-based, & unrealistic assumption. The main reason for our existence is the one thing we all have in-common: interest in men's LONG HAIR. Beyond that, we all differ in many, many ways...
Historically, quite a few of the organized religions in our society have had a prejudice against men wearing their hair long. This is true, regardless of whether we are talking about recent times, or that of going back in time. To doubt this or disagree with this statement is to not know or understand history and the pressures of society that longhairs have had to endure. Understandably then, many longhairs have felt the very rejection that you complain about experiencing as a Christian here. You have a choice: you can take disagreement personally; or, you can try to see the other's point-of-view, and graciously learn from them...
And as I said earlier, one of the other moderators may yank this thread at any time, --- and even with my blessing!
- Ken
(Who just so happens to have been raised a Christian Scientist)
Listen, I am not making a attack on you or anyone else. In fact, I have no problems with homosexuals in general. However I feel like im being attacked when people blatantly post anti-christian flames, or misrepresent my sacred faith.
I do not view anyone as any less of a person as anyone else, I love all equally as is gods message. However, I don't feel its fair that christians are "fair game" for being flamed and yet no one else is. I think either anyone should be able to be flamed OR no one should be flamed. Hypocrisy is a sad state of mind for a progessive thinking group of people ['such as us longhairs].
Whoever said life was "fair"? Hypocrisy is a sad state of mind, regardless of whether found in a "progressive thinking" group of people, or found in the most sluggish of the "ultra-conservative" circles; but, hypocrisy is also a part of life, --- just that in some cases, it's more seriously so than in others! If we are being "unfair" or "hypocritical" in some ways, sobeit, --- I can live with that. I willingly admit to not being humanly "perfect"... BUT, can you honestly tell me that you are not also the same??...
If you really oppose hypcorisy and inequality, then why not help put a stomp to it by treating everyone equal. That means defending christians even if you don't agree with them, just as I would openly defend someone of a different religion, race, orientation, or sex as a valid equal being?
My final comment to you on this topic is as follows...
Whoever said i DON'T try to treat everyone equal??? I do my best that I know. And it is not up to *you* to decide if my best is "not good enough"!
The very reason these posts are usually NOT approved, is because of the very thing that's happening now: you are obviously waiting & hanging around to anxiously reply and disagree with everyone who responds (unless they are in full agreement with you). In fact, I'm not even sure you've really taken the time to thoroughly READ & CONSIDER what I've written so-far, --- and I haven't really even "disagreed" in any sort of serious way!!!!
You may have the "last word" now, since my impression of you is that this apparently must be important to you to have the "final say", --- obviously, you'll find SOMEthing "wrong" that I said to argue with me about! But, rest assured, if you continue to make this thread a long & grueling off-topic ordeal, don't be surprised if it "magically" disappears into thin air soon...
The reason this board is moderated is to basically try to stay as ON-topic as possible, --- meaning, "What has this to do with men's long hair?" Whether you consider this fair or not is not the concern of the original owner of the site, nor the concern of those of us that are now its stewards. This is a private site, and YOU ARE A GUEST. So, if you behave according to how we've found works appropriately in the past, you are always welcome to stay; but, that doesn't mean we won't eventually find the need to yank this thread!
I will stay silent about this particular topic from here on now...
- Ken
If you feel uncomfortable here, for any reason, you are certainly entitled to not participate here. Personally, I've found, in these situations, it is better to just walk away, rather than to try to engage in a debate that is unlikely to change anyone's mind and is also unlikely to bring you any relief from your feelings.
(No, I didn't read the rest of your post.)
I was brought up Christian and don't approve of the remarks made against Christianity.
However, one of the factors that could be contributing to it is a certain text in the Bible. I think a lot of the anger comes from Paul's words at 1 Corinthians chapter 11. There have been discussions ad nauseum about this verse on this discussion board but the fact remains that if taken AT FACE VALUE his words there are highly prejudicial to men who have longhair identities.
This apparent rejection can cause others to view Christianity as a non-inclusive type of religion. Since this IS a long hair board for MEN, it's easy to see why this could create antagonism for some members here regarding Christianity.
I do not understand why God would inspire such a verse in the first place. Why such a pejorative description of what should be at most a harmless variation in personal style?
His verses about short hair are mean't to impose modesty such as this one:
"Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of fine clothing, but let it be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious." (1 Peter 3:3-4 RSV)
He is saying that do not be vain, rather find your strength and beauty in your heart.
And this message:
"If a man's hair has fallen from his head, he is bald but he is clean." (Leviticus 13:40 RSV)
Is to say that no one should mock someone over something silly as male pattern baldness.
Heres a very respectful verse to men with hair in the bible:
"The glory of young men is their strength, but the beauty of old men is their gray hair." (Proverbs 20:29 RSV)
By this he is saying for men not be to vain about being attractive as their are better qualities then attractiveness in men.
"Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride?" (1 Corinthians 11:14-15 RSV)
""Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride?""
LOL - exactly!!!! I don't particularly enjoy being described as degraded.
Agreed I was brought up christian as well, people seem to "look down" upon long hair dudes... I respect everyones right to find thier own religion
LOL anyone ever watch geroge carlin, if u r a christian ( or religious person" who offended easily don't watch this...
No offense, but, if you wanted to leave the board, then why didn't you just stop visiting? It seems apparent that you wanted some sort of long, draught-out reaction.
If you are part of something, its always good to acknowledge your leaving, and its not for sure if I will leave or not, im just asking for as much respect as everyone else.
Sorry all, being in Australia I was asleep while all this was going on so I'm late to the issue...
Keeping it brief:
1. People like to categorise everyone and everything, it makes them feel comfortable in themselves.
2. People assign their own judgements and values to these categories.
3 People then wave their flags and defend their beliefs/attack those who don't agree.
4. This has been and will always be the case until the last human being is gone one day. I do it too. It's everyones right!
5. Take a deep breath and get on with your life, you will enjoy it more. But if you can't let it go it won't really bother me!
I'm relaxing....
MattT
You claim to have been some sort of victim on this site, but who is attacking gay people with quotes from the Bible? You are the one attacking other people, including me.
If your entire comprehension of Christianity rests with the five quotes you placed in your post, then you are truly a misguided person. Do you want this board's permission to let you hate a particular group of people? Debating my sexual orientation is not why I joined this board.
If you only want to hear opinions that mirror your own, then perhaps this site isn't the right place for you. I personally have come to appreciate the diversity of people who are members on this site. I don't agree with everything I read on the posts, but I respect other people's opinions and their right to share them. You, on the other hand, attack any viewpoint that is not identical to yours.
You seem to be on a crusade to attack gay people. How are your attacks on me and other gay people any different than the negative opinions written about Christianity by members of this board?
I surely didn't see you condemn anyone who attacked christianity, yet you condemn me? I am not attacking homosexuals, I was posting what the bible says directly so we could open up the debate. I have no problem with anyone regardless of their sexual orientation.
Also I would like to add I didn't attack anyone.
I found this site, gaychristians.net or something, it basically says that being gay is not a sin and that there are very few verses that "deals" with gays, and none of them are spoken by jesus, and none of them deals with having a partner for life, whatever gender they may be. I feel that if God sends a person to hell because of his sexual orientation, or the gender of his or her partner, then it goes against the character of God and negates the need for Christ to die on the cross. I do not think that God died so that we can be mindless robots that follows a set of rules. Also realize that the law was not made so people follow it. God knows no one can ever keep the law, he made the law to show that we need God and that we can't just redeem ourselves by being good. I have gotten into serious debates with other christians regarding my views on gays because alot of christians seems somewhat homophobic, and have gotten some un-christian responses as well. I dont know what to say, but majority opinion does NOT determine truth...
I am str8 but, if god sends people to hell for their sexual preference something they have no control over, is that really a god u wanna trust- belive in, btw i am not a religious person by any means, i just tend to question everything, and not belive much.
Again, a misconception. Whether or not differing sexual preferences is considered sinful or not is immaterial. Christianity is based on the concept that Christ died for the sole purpose of forgiving the sins of those who have faith in him. So if it's not a sin, no problem. If it is, it's forgiven. Period.
Great point.
Christianity is attacked here because it is a social group that chose to disrespect longhaired men. They have thus asked for it, and it is they that started the quarrel. Defending OUR social group if attacked by another is ON TOPIC.
Case closed.
Bill
Bill, I must politely disagree. Certain individuals who are Christians may choose to attack longhaired men; I have been a Christian all my life, and I'm not aware of the body itself having that viewpoint. That is called "stereotyping" which has been discussed at length on our end here.
Big George
It's obviously unfair to say EVERY Christian disagrees, but nearly 30% of Americans are what you'd call fundamentalists. That's million of people, who in the name of their religion despise our social group, amongst other discrimination. That's in America only, millions more Christians and Muslims as well as others worldwide opposed to it.
EDIT: Sorry, meant millions, not million.
You help make my point; in one fell swoop we have gone from all of Christianity in Bill's post to 30% who are fundamentalists in yours. Once again, there are many in that fundamentalist group who don't classify long hair on men as a demonition. Just because it's the position of the leadership of those fundamentalists doesnt' mean the rank and file subscribe to it.
The Catholic Church is a good example of this. Their doctrine dictates no efforts at birth control are allowed except for the rhythm method. However the majority of Catholics (and many of the Priesthood) practice and discuss other methods of birth control on a regular basis.
Once again, you cannot classify the majority by the vocal statements of the leadership. Once again we are stereotyping these people; something that we as men with longer hair abhore.
Big George
My apologies; I meant to say that many of the Priesthood will discuss other options of birth control, which are discussed and practiced by a majority of the Catholic laity.
Big George
Big George,
You are right in your first post. Many Roman Catholic clergy practice birth control.
You may be interested in a book review I justn submitted, if not directly on the specific issue of long hair, is indeed related.
THUS:
August 6, 2006
A BOOK REVIEW for
ARCHIVES OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR
Hanson, R. Karl; Pfaefflin, Friedemann, Luetz, Manfred, (Eds.) Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church: Scientific and Legal Perspectives, Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Vatican City. 2003.
This book is less than it purports to be, yet it is not without value. Subtitled “Proceedings of the Conference ‘Abuse of Children and Young People by Catholic Priests and Religious’,” a conference held in Vatican City in 2003 and sponsored by the Pontifical Academy for Life, with representatives from eleven other named constituents of the Roman Curia. While the crisis has been considered by various “Dicasteries,” a word which sent me to The OED for definition, the focus of this conference was the scientific perspectives in psychiatry and psychology.
However, there is something very mysterious about this volume, perhaps like the mystery of the Mass: the substance is one thing and the accidents are another. I have not been able to figure it out, but here is my thought pathway.
Descriptively, the last two pages of the book is a list of chapters. The previous two pages provide a list of 13 contributors, three of whom are the editors, one the vice president of the pontificate of Life, and Titular Bishop of Zama Minor who wrote the “Introduction,” and two nuns, one a clinical psychologist and the other a psychiatrist.
Yet, in the “Editor’s Introduction,” and repeated in the “Conclusion, ”we read: “None of the experts who participated in this conference were Catholics.” So I went in search of the “experts,” but no list was to be found nor description of their role. After most chapters in the book there is a “Discussion” section, which typically begins with: “The experts were invited to comment on the presentation,” yet the reader is left to surmise who the experts were: presumably four German and one American psychiatrists, and three Canadian psychologists. There is no discussion of the criteria for selection of the experts, nor any real explanation of why no Roman Catholic “experts” were included, if indeed I have correctly identified the experts.
Ron Langevinm PhD. discusses differences between clergy and non clergy abusers and screening methods. Martin Kafka, M.D. discusses sexual molesters of adolescents and use of medication in treating clergy abusers. Karl Hanson, Ph.D. describes screening techniques in use in Canadian volunteer organizations and relapse prevention strategies. His woman co-presenter Shelley Price is not identified at all! William L. Marshall, PhD. describes cognitive-behavioral treatment and Friedemann Pfaefflin (ae = a unlaut), M.D. psychoanalytic approaches. Hans-Ludwig Kroeber, (oe = o umlaut) M. D. describes the German legal situation. Christian Reimer, M. D. compares prevention of sexual abuse by typically male psychotherapists of female clients to the Roman Catholic priest’s abuse of primarily male children and youth. Most of the presentations are competent and useful, but they are uneven and consistently fail to engage the real issues: what are the conditions within the Roman Catholic Church which have led to this crisis?
These secular, professional papers are presented in an ecclesiastic, perhaps unconsciously intimidating context, so the difficult issues were avoided. The editors, deny that clerical, celibacy has anything to do with the problem: “Given that most adults who abuse children are married, it is clear that marriage is no safe guard against sexual abuse.” Well, yes, but forgoing the comfort, pleasure and validation of being touched physically by another human being does not come without cost. Kafka notes that most child sexual abuse even of boys is by acknowledged heterosexuals, while “...the primary victim of Roman Catholic clergy offenders are post-pubertal young adults, in particular male adolescents.” There is no discussion of the sex-negative doctrines of this church and its discouragement of public sex education.
Had I been one of the experts, I would have told the editors that the conventional scientific term for variations in sexual expression is “orientation,” and not “preference,” which is consistently, with some exceptions, used in this report. Do they not know they are stacking the deck with this term? [Do I need to spell it out? Orientation means nature. Preference means choice.] German contributor, Pfaefflin (ae = a umlaut), says “...fixed and stable sexual preference disorder (terminology of ICD-10)...” (p. 73). What is going on here? This is not so. Neither ICD-9 or ICD-10 uses the term “preference.” The book claims to represent the scientific consensus, yet here is an accidental or intentional misrepresentation of the standard international reference book on nomenclature and diagnosis.
While some of the papers are good and useful, they do not well represent the full spectrum of scientific thinking or research on sexual abuse. These experts were kept on a short ecclesiastical leash. The Roman Catholic Church is the loser. This report demonstrates that this denomination does not have the inner resources to deal with its own human reality. Alas, a sad situation for an institution which claims to be the authoritative moral guide for all humanity.
James
Okay, I'll concede that Christians who don't use the Bible or similarly bigoted works may be off the hook.
Bill
": Christianity is attacked here because it is a social group that chose to disrespect longhaired men. They have thus asked for it, and it is they that started the quarrel. Defending OUR social group if attacked by another is ON TOPIC.
It is so disappointing when a mod of forum chooses to make inflaming statements like these, instead of helping to moderate a group. Sometimes a neutral position needs to be taken.
Since when did Christianity become a social group? When did "long hair" become a social group?
When did Chritianity "ask for it"? I'm a Christian...should I be attacked? I'm also a man with waist-length hair. Should I ( a Christian) attack myself because I have long hair? Or should I (a long haired man) attack Christianity?
There are many subgroups of Christianity. There are many subgroups of people with long hair. It is just ignorant to make general statements about people or groups of people.
I'm pleased to see you speak up like this, Mick and agree with you. A neutral position 'can' be taken rather than the judgement call of 'should' but it sounds like the just thing to do. Obviously letting intentional slights slide when agreed with is not the way you or I would act as a moderator yet there is integrity of sorts with the openness to acknowledge that this place is biased. A claim that there is no slant when one exists would be troubling but this is not the case. It is a sad consequence though that Christians or various other people can be put off the help found here by the tone at times. If the purpose of this site is not to knock Christianity then allowing potshots to stay seems counterproductive to me, particularly when sometimes those are the men who have some of the greatest need for this place.
What I see clearly with the few Anti-Christian posts not of a discussion nature going uncommented upon is that it is a sign of hurt inflicted in the name of that religion on longhaired men. This does not excuse it however, knocking all Christianity for the behavior of some is just like the disrespect of suspicion of longhaired men as a group. Until the Christian God waltzes in here and posts his definitive take on men having long hair I'll not judge the religion based on implementation, especially when there are a lot of Christians preaching tolerance of diversity and treating others right which strikes me as a more accurate implementation to begin with.
Some more thoughts, given that we don't know the posts that never pass moderation there are likely a lot of ranting posts against Christianity that don't make the board or are pulled thanks to complaints. What we may see are more borderline posts or ones that have been missed so pointing them out to those that mod would be in order.
I know it is already wrapped up for the original poster since he is not leaving after all but I would say do comment upon perceived slights as you see them in their threads instead of letting them build up. Since this is a discussion board you have an opportunity to give people feedback and another perspective on their thinking. Use your writing skill to persuade and possibly convince, boyofcurls.
Elizabeth
Wow, that is quite a step out on the imagination limb for not knowing this to be true.
You have a lot of good posts here but to throw an airball like this in with what appears to be a carefully thought out post is kind of weird, Elizabeth.
This board is not neutral on long hair, and doesn't pretend to be. Conversely, the bible does contain that unfortunate verse from Corinthians. I think it is fair yo say that the position of this board is that this particular verse is bilge. So, naturally, this puts us as a group at loggerheads with at least those Chridtians who beleive that everything in the bible is the literal word of a higher being.
Fortunately that isn't 100% of christians who yake such a digmatic view iof their scripture, as there are an awful lot of christians around!
TYping this in the dark and can't see the keyboard!
Thanks for catching that, Erik. That last thought got thrown in right before posting but I didn't check to see if what I was thinking was really what I was saying. I don't imagine the board gets masses of posts slamming Christians as a matter of course, at least not since our favorite 'wind him up and let him rant' atheist left the board. ;-) What was on my mind was only in particularly active threads like this with the topic of Christianity.
When the complaint is that slighting posts get through I think it is helpful to consider that the Christians who would be offended are being protected from purely unhelpful, spiteful rants that are not intended to advance the conversation. While we will never know the amount of selection the mods have to do on a thread like this I know we are seeing nothing like it would be if the moderators permitted open season on beliefs and their critics. My sense is that people are being sheltered from the ugliest posts, just not as protected as they would like though.
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify and elaborate.
Elizabeth
I am infinitely grateful that I came to this board too late for that!
dino
Heres the thing boyofcurls,and others,
You give yourself the title of Christ follower. That means many things, one of which is different types of persecution, as stated from Jesus' mouth.
You arent the only one to see the anti-Christianity bias here. I have noticed it as well. But perhaps acting like Christ himself and loving the people here anyway despite whatever is said is something you as a believer are called to do. You gotta keep a few things in mind... There are few Christians in this world who understand the message of Christ, which is Love, not judgement. And its even harder to find Christians who practice what they preach.
You don't respect some people's sexual orientation? That's fine, but do you recall Luke 6:42?? "How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Perhaps before you pass judgement on others, which is God's territory alone, you should look to how you have responded to the people you dislike on this board. Was it with love or with contempt?
You are in a big, big world. And if you walk around carrying your cross (figuritively), as I pray you do, you are going to take heat for it. That point isnt only common sense, its scriptural too.
Many people on this board have had very very negative things happen to them in the "name of Christ" which were not very christian things, and their view of Christ's love and message may be incorrect. People can only know God's message as the people bring it to them. I have personally met a few people on this board who had a very warped view of Christianity because the "Christian" they spoke to was neither loving, nor Christ-like at all, and ruined all positive potential at the word Christian for that person.
All i'm saying, and I'm saying it to everyone, is for non-christians to be aware to not hate the faith over a few "believers" who have potentially lost their own path and given the faith a bad name. Please don't let the followers disgrace the name of the leader. And to Christians, you associate yourself with that title in this country and you are going to take heat for it, justified or otherwise. Look to Jesus, no one took more crap for the name of God than He did. But it doesn't mean you walk away, it means you stay, you Love, and you make any attempts to give a positive impression and shine the light of Christ on others through your loving actions.
Thanks for everyone who actually read through this. ANY questions or comments at all, feel free to post a reply or IM me at LooKcloser1827, or email at rome.sc@gmail.com
Peace and Love,
~Rome
Hi,
I can relate on that being christians really marks you for persecution. First its my view on gays, I don't believe that being gay is a sin and that it is my opinion that it just goes against God's character to send people to hell because of their orientation. Before I became christian I used to hate them. I thought all christians were bad because I read in the history about the inquisition, salem witchcraft trials, many killings and torturings done in the name of God. It doesnt really help that many who calls themselves christians seems arrogant, they tell you to believe Jesus but they act like they are somehow holier because they attend church every sundays or whatnot, or do this and that. But it took so much pain on my part to learn the truth about christianity. I went through some weird faith (like Islam) cause I wanted to be loved, and felt that I had to be with someone, you know God or something. I had questions about the afterlife, like many people do. I never thought of being christians because I thought it was bad and confusing due to having so many denominations and bible versions. I think Ghandi once said that he likes Jesus, but he does not like his christians. Now that I am a christian, it seems like many "christians" wants you to feel like you had to do works or something to be a good person or something, then make it like salvation is conditional (when its not) and then chastizes you if you thought being gay wasnt a sin.
Hey Rome,
Well, I gotta hand it to ya: I am very impressed with what you said here... You definitely expressed some very fine thoughts, and put them into words in a most amazing way, --- THANKS!!
- Ken in San Francisco
As another Christian longhair who has been reading this site for many years, I agree that a few who post here have an anti-christian bias. Many of these posts were based on intolerance or insult received from other Christians or the church (whether perceived or actual). It helps to realize this when you see these relatively infrequent posts. Many times these people are venting frustration. Also, remember one of this website's primary purposes is to provide help and encouragement to people who have longhair, are growing out their hair and want to grow out their hair.
Here are a few things to keep in mind when you come across these postings.
1. There are also others who post here who are Christian. We sometimes face issues about our long hair from others within and outside of the church. We can provide help and encouragement to each other here.
2. There are websites that provide biblical defense of long hair on men and an accurate interpretation of 1Cor 11. Find them and post a link to one of these site in response to the negative postings. This will provide encouragement to other Christians on this site and show that there are Christians who are supportive of men with long hair.
3. Sometimes it is best to just ignore some of these posts if you know its going to be offensive. Otherwise the post can take on a life of its own.
4. This site is part of the internet where there is a wide diversity of opinions. We need to forbear and not take personal insult and provide positive responses.
I and many on this site will agree that you have great hair. We can provide support and encouragement to each other here. I encourage you not to leave.
I have not found many other sites for long-haired men and most would be more insulting to Christians. This one strives to stay positive and provide help and encouragement to all. I have yet to find a Christian long hair site (please let me know the address if you find one).
b.j.
With all due respect, no one is forcing you to read any of these messages.
However, you seem to have no understanding of WHY people would have problems with Christians. Conservative/fundamentalist Christians are quite dominant in the Western world, and they oppose men with long hair as some sort of abomination. 1/3 of Americans believe in the literal creation story - 1/3 are therefore fundamentalists, and it's a reasonable assumption that they also oppose men with long hair or alternative lifestyles.
And you said Christians don't support violence and such...all I have to say is, read the bible. I find many Christians read between the lines, or read the desirable parts of the bible and label the undesirable as metaphorical. God himself murders, destroys, and orders acts of genocide on part of the Israelis, mass murders, rape, beating, discrimination and hatred.
You aren't unwelcome here. This is a board about long hair, so you're welcome here. It is you who is making yourself unwelcome in your eyes because you, like many Christians, are intolerant to other beliefs and lifestyles. Face it: not everyone is a Christian, whether you like it or not.
First of all, I must say I agree with you. There have been several posts on here which do show the lack of respect for Christians which you mention.
Second, I must also say that there have been other items posted on here which has rubbed me the wrong way. One example was the poster who voiced and solicited support for those currently at war with Israel; several others (including me) pointedly said not to go there. That's not what this forum is about.
Third, as a Christian, you will learn to grow a thick skin, as Christians are persecuted throughout the world. Removing oneself from the situation, however, may not be the best solution. This world is made up of people of various beliefs, non beliefs, lifestyles, etc. Listening and understanding (I didn't say agreeing) their views can only help to strengthen yours. When one goes into a debate, he is much better prepared when he has heard & digested as much of the opposing viewpoint as possible.
I fully believe that we need to surround ourselves with people whose faith is as ours is. That is why we are regular members and attendees of our Church; my kids are in the youth group there, and we participate in numerous activities with the people from the church. It is the strength through those regular activities which gives Christians the ability to exist and coexist in a world of today filled with those who have either no beliefs or an animosity towards those that do. And the reality is, that is the world in which we live.
But I seriously feel that removing yourself from this board because others have opinions that don't follow your beliefs in only shortchanging you. You need to hear what others have to say. You need to learn to handle what others have to say. If Christ had taken the same approach and only interacted with other Christians, Christianity would still be a religion of one.
I have no problem interacting on this board. There are viewpoints I don't agree with; there are other things I don't agree with. Let's say I had an aversion to a certain group of people, say dancing cowboys. Just because I have an aversion to this group along with some of my friends doesn't mean it's wrong to be a dancing cowboy. It means I have an aversion to it. But this forum is not in place to discuss that issue.
I often tend to make lite of certain situations, I'm sure there are people on this board who don't share my sense of humor and react negatively to it. Should they leave because they don't agree with me? Of course not. This board is not the place to fight those battles.
I have only mentioned religion on here twice, both times in response to someone else who raised the subject; your post being the second. I do not plan to initiate discussion in this area, but will respond when I feel it is appropriate. Once again, this is not the place for those battles.
I encourage you to join the Christian group you mentioned. Do it in addition to remaining here. There is a lot of good information to be had here. There are good people here. Use this forum for the purpose it was intended, and benefit from it.
And if you would like to discuss this further, e-mail me. I would be happy to engage in a discussion privately about this topic.
Whatever you decide, I wish you the best.
Big George
Hey, I resemble that remark (lol!)!!
- Ken
That's what I was thinking too! Like, hey, what's his beef with Ken? :)
No beef. I know Ken has a sense of humor and hoped he would recognize my veiled barb as it was meant.
George, I know you didn't really have a beef thus my smiley. Ken does have a great sense of humor and I also knew he would take it as a joke as I did.
That would be me. The thread in question was about hair length of Israeli reservists. If you think the length of their hair is more important than the current situation, you can't expect everyone to agree, and I don't. Nor can you expect everyone to be on the same side, and I'm not. Blame whoever started a thread about the hair length of a military that is currently in action. Once that was posted, someone would have said something against them, as surely as night follows day. As before, I am being very careful not to say something stronger, but all you have to do is read the papers.
I was well aware of who posted it; I just didn't want to start another in depth off topic discussion. The situation is much more important than the length of the soldiers hair; this is just not the place to discuss it, since this is a hair site. The question was about the military allowing their soldiers to have long hair; not the philosophy behind the war. Your comment was inflammatory and out of place here.
Big George
I have decided to stay after all of this. I am sorry for causing a scene and I apologize to anyone whom I've offended. I thank you for those who posted constructive posts and I will stay, and remain part of the community. Thanks again to those who posted a response.
Great! Then send in an avatar that shows your face like all the rest of us have. You must really have an "in" with God to have gotten that one into the database. [grin]
Truthfully, to do the Christian thing and be fair. The moderators have always rejected similar submissions from others.
Hey, you start a really big thread and you really get noticed!
Bill
I'm glad you are staying on the board.
I feel compelled to offer my thoughts. While I understand that you feel attacked for your beliefs, your words are difficult for me to hear. I try to be respectful of a diversity of belief systems and faith traditions -- even though many faith traditions attack my being on a regular basis. The language of "person of faith" strikes me as political -- because of the way it is broadly used -- and has been employed by an ideology that works to limit my freedom.
Belief and being are different. One is chosen and one is not. I hope you can see that, from my point of view, Christianity (as a religious movement) has some work to do in making manifest its theology of love before Christians can expect it in return.
Peace, Pete
Pete, what a gentle & kind way to say what I feel on this topic, too, --- and I even come from a Christian background (Christian Scientist, to be specific). Being gay, as well as always wanting to have long hair my whole life, the total non-acceptance (and actually outright intolerance) from so many of the hardcore self-righteous Christian crowd has turned so many otherwise open-minded people away, rather than towards, feeling that Christianity can be a theology of love.
- Ken
I grew up in a Christian context, too. I left the church because of its politics rather than it's philosophy. I try to be gentle about my critique, but my anger at Christian bigotry and contradiction is rather fierce. It rather bothers me that a philosophy of peace is wielded as a weapon.
Glad my words were useful.
cheers, Pete
.
I am glad you decided to stay. I will say this though, I read all these posts, and none offended me in the least either way. I believe what I believe, and no matter what another says, it really doesn't matter if they agree with me or not. At the end of the day, you're right back where you started.
When you are at the end of a gun-point because of your religion, then that's offensive/ridiculuous/insane/horrendous/horrid/intolerant.
Until then, this is just a bunch of words. Get over it.
You know, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me!"
Glad to hear of this news of deciding to stay. The guys on this board are just so great in the help and support areas.
While I am at it, I may as well mention that as nice as your photo is showing your hair from above (which looks really great by the way) the Hyperboard has certain guidelines about the photos of all we guys, one of which being that ones face should be showing. Please change your photo "ASAP" so we can all get to know you better and you can join in the fun that comes with being a member of this Long Haired Group.
Thanks so much and it is great having you here! :-)
Justin~
dude not 2 be rude or "anti christian", but this is probably the best forum on the net about mens long hair, if posts with anti christian remarks come up, ignore them or post ur bitch then.
But to be honest religion has nothing to do with what anyone chooses or chooses not to do with their image i.e. FREE WILL, wether that be hair/tatoos or attatching some sort of sea creature to their face, despite whats written in the bible.
Bottom line is who gives a f***
Hi BoyOfCurls,
thanks for contributing to the discussion. Your thread (which worked out well, by the way) has discussed quite a few critical aspects, and things apparently did NOT get out of hand.
I'm glad that you are staying, and I do think your experiences concerning long hair on males are VERY welcome, and that you are valued by Christians and non-Christians. I have always felt welcome, even though, as a Christian, I disagree on certain religious topics with many board members, both Christian and non-Christian. Usually, I'm not very willing to discuss these points here.
Just one general thing: For any behavior to be a sin, it must be immoral in itself, the "perpetrator" must understand the sinfulness of the behavior, and the behavior must be voluntary. In others, I'm rarely if ever certain that all three conditions are met, and I try to be careful in my moral criticisms of others. If you want to discuss the implications of this a bit more, you are always welcome to drop me an e-mail (Click on "Hans-Uwe" above). Other board members will offer you the same.
Good to have you around, and, as I said, lets more or less agree on topic, and disagree on things off-topic. A personal statement, a bit off-topic: I'm certain that God will not consign anyone to hell for disagreeing with my moral standards - and, I'm glad that God's mind and love is infinitely greater than mine.
Peace and happy growth to you and all the others,
Hans-Uwe
Hi Boyofcurls,
I don't know that I have the energy these days to get into a long discussion of all that was brought up in your post, but I do just want to address "the truth" part of it. It's quite difficult for people who do not believe to accept that something is the truth simply becuause it was written in the Bible. You're just not gonna get anywhere in a dicussion with those who do not accept the same faith you have by quoting bible passages and proclaiming that, well, there it is, it's gotta be the truth. These days there's so much information available from so many sources that biblical inerrancy just doesn't hold up unless you already believe in it.
Thats pretty much all I wanted to say. I have my own particlar relationship with christianity, born out of my own experiences, and at this point I would just have to say I believe the old quote, "it's not that Christianity has been tried and found lacking, it has hardly been tried at all" is pretty accurate.
I include myself amongst those who haven't practiced nearly what Christianity really teaches.
I am glad you decided to stay, though... this really is the long hair hyperboard, and not really a forum for or against any particular religion.
Well I was up in pennsylvania for a while so I didn't get to respond to my original thread. What I had posted was an excerpt taken from a christian site... gotquestions I think it was. It is a misuse of scripture and goes totally against what the bible is about... cleansing of sins and eternal life... neither of which long hair will affect.
What is more hurtful? A "christian" site saying that long hair is not manly, it is a sin, against god etc. Or someone countering that?
If you can not stand to hear others voice their opinions on your religion you can leave than. Were not the early christians persecuted for their faith? Will you really leave over a few posts that you didn't like?
n/t
R.A.Q.
Your post seems to say that if we don't agree with christianity that this constitutes an attack on you. Personally I don't beleive in any religion, but I do beleive in freedom of religion, including the right to disagree with scripture.
There is a trend amonst the religeous right to label any doctrinal disagreement as intolerance. This either shows a lack of understanding or else it is a ploy to attempt to cow others into silence. It won't work, sorry! Real intolerance is when you are mean to others because they have a different belief than you do, not merely disagreeing.
Re-reading your post, it seems that the point of all the anti-gay bible verses was to prove that it is Christian doctrine. It may be. There are quite a few gay men here, and if you take the trouble to converse with them you will find that they are decent people. The logical consequence of that is to conclude that the bible is wrong. To me that is much easier than beleiving that our friends here are 'abominations', but then I never was a Christian anyway.
You will also find that there are some here who as a result of curious mental gymnastics have concluded that they can reconcile being gay with being christian, perhaps by ignoring the Old Testament altogether, Well, I'm neither gay nor christian, so that's not an issue for me, but you shouldn't be surprised if someone rejects a religion that rejects them.
The majority of us are not gay on here, but there's always that verse from Corinthians. There have been many threads on here discussing it, and some of them have included posts from fellow non-believers to the effect that the bible is rubbish anyway. I'm too polite to say that myself, but I think it's fair comment, and very different than, for example, saying something derogatory about christians.
I personally think that Jesus was a great bloke who talked a lot of sense. The only snag is I don't beleive in a god. Actually arguably anyone who accepts his teachings and ignores the OT is still a Christian, albeit I don't know any denomination like that (and no, I still wouldn't qualify, a small matter of not beleiveibg that his Dad is real!).
If Christians wish to defend such words as written in their books about long hair degrading a man then they must expect the backlash of such outrageous statements.
You may find the following article of interest, which explains why we Orthodox Christians have worn long hair and beards for 2,000 years, and reject the paganesque short hair, clean shaven face, look that Western 'Judeo-Christian' society has been brainwashed into thinking is the ideal for men ....
Uncut Hair and Beards of the Clergy
The question of the appropriateness of long hair and beards is frequently put to traditional Orthodox clergy. A comprehensive article appeared in Orthodox Life concerning clergy dress in the J./F. 1991 issue. At this time we would like to address the topic of clergy appearance, i.e. hair and beards.
Anyone looking at photographs and portraits of clergy in Greece, Russia, Rumania, and other Orthodox countries taken in the early twentieth century will notice that almost without exception both the monastic and married clergy, priests and deacons, wore untrimmed beards and hair. Only after the First World War do we observe a new, modern look, cropped hair and beardless clergy. This fashion has been continued among some of the clergy to our own day. If one were to investigate this phenomenon in terms of a single clergyman whose life spanned the greater part of our century one would probably notice his style modernize from the first photographs up through the last.
There are two reasons given as an explanation for this change: it is said, "One must conform with fashion, we cannot look like peasants!" Or even more absurd, "My wife will not allow it!". Such reasoning is the "dogmatic" line of modernists who either desire to imitate contemporary fashion (if beards are "in," they wear beards, if beards are "out," they shave), or are ecumenically minded, not wanting to offend clergy in denominations outside the Orthodox Church. The other reason is based on a passage of Holy Scripture where Saint Paul states, Both not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (I Cor. 11:14) In answer to the first justification, Orthodox tradition directly condemns Modernism and Ecumenism. It is necessary however to deal in more detail with the argument that bases its premise on Holy Scripture.
Orthodox Christian piety begins in the Holy Tradition of the Old Testament. Our relationship to the Lord God, holiness, worship, and morality was formed in the ancient times of the Bible. At the time of the foundation of the priesthood the Lord gave the following commandments to the priests during periods of mourning, And ye shall not shave your head for the dead [a pagan practice] with a baldness on the top; and they shall not shave their beard... (Lev. 21: 5), and to all men in general, Ye shall not make a round cutting of the hair of your head, nor disfigure your beard (Lev. 19:27). The significance of these commandments is to illustrate that the clergy are to devote themselves completely to serving the Lord. Laymen as well are called to a similar service though without the priestly functions. This out ward appearance as a commandment was repeated in the law given to the Nazarene, a razor shall not come upon his head, until the days be fulfilled which he vowed to the Lord: he shall be holy, cherishing the long hair of the head all the days of his vow to the Lord... (Numbers 6:5-6).
The significance of the Nazarene vow was a sign of God's power resting on the person who made it. To cut off the hair meant to cut off God's power as in the example of Samson (see Judges 16:17-19). The strength of these pious observances, transmitted to the New Testament Church, were observed without question till our present times of willfulness and the apostasy resulting from it. Why, one might ask, do those Orthodox clergymen, while rejecting the above pious ordinances about hair, continue to observe the custom of granting various head coverings to clergy, a practice which also has its roots in the ancient ordinances of the Old Testament (cf. Ex. 24:4-6) and the tradition of the early Church (see Fusebius and Epiphanius of Cyprus concerning the miters worn by the Apostles John and James)?
The Apostle Paul himself wore his hair long as we can conclude from the following passage where it is mentioned that "head bands," in Slavonic, and "towels" touched to his body were placed on the sick to heal them. The "head bands" indicate the length of his hair (in accor dance with pious custom) which had to be tied back in order to keep it in place (cf. Acts 19:12). The historian Egezit writes that the Apostle James, the head of the church in Jerusalem, never cut his hair (Christian Reading, Feb. 1898, p.142, [in Russian]).
If the pious practice among clergy and laity in the Christian community was to follow the example of the Old Testament, how then are we to understand the words of Saint Paul to the Corinthians cited earlier (I Cor. 11:14)? Saint Paul in the cited passage is addressing men and woman who are praying (cf. I Cor. 11:3-4). His words in the above passages, as well as in other passages concerning head coverings (cf. I Cor. 11: 4-7), are directed to laymen, not clergy. In other passages Saint Paul makes an obvious distinction between the clerical and lay rank (cf. I Cor. 4:1, I Tim. 4:6, Col. 1:7, and others). He did not oppose the Old Testament ordinance in regard to hair and beards since, as we have noted above, he himself observed it, as did Our Lord Himself, Who is depicted on all occasions with long hair and beard as the Great High Priest of the new Christian priest hood.
In our passage noted previously, Both not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (I Cor. 11:14) Saint Paul uses the Greek word for "hair." This particular word for hair designates hair as an a ornament (the notion of length being only secondary and suggested), differing from the anatomical or physical term for hair.1 Saint Paul's selection of words emphasizes his criticism of laymen wearing their hair in a stylized fashion, which was contrary to pious Jewish and Christian love of modesty. We note the same approach to hair as that of Saint Paul in the 96th canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council where it states: "Those therefore who adorn and arrange their hair to the detri ment of those who see them, that is by cunningly devised intertwinings, and by this means put a bait in the way of unstable souls 3
In another source, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, we read the follow ing concerning the Old Testament practice: "To an extent, hair style was a matter of fashion, at least among the upper classes, who were particularly open to foreign [pagan] influence. Nevertheless, long hair appears to have been the rule among the Hebrews (cf. Ezek. 8:3), both men and women"2 (cf. Cant 4:1; 7:5). Thus we observe that cropped or stylized hair was the fashion among the pagans and not acceptable, especially among the Christian clergy from most ancient times up to our contemporary break with Holy Tradition. It is interesting to note that the fashion of cropped or stylized hair and shaved beards found its way into the Roman Catholic and Protestant worlds. So important had this pagan custom be come for Roman clergy by the 11th Century that it was listed among the reasons for the Anathema pronounced by Cardinal Humbert on July 15, 1054 against Patriarch Michael in Constantinople which precipitated the Western Church's final falling away from the Orthodox Church: "While wearing beards and long hair you [Eastern Orthodox] reject the bond of brotherhood with the Roman clergy, since they shave and cut their hair." [!]
Igumen Luke
Endnotes
1) Joseph Thayer D. D., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 354.
2) A. C. Myers ed., The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, p.455
3) The Rudder, tranS. D. Cummings, p.403.
4) N. N. Voekov, The Church, Russia, and Rome, (in Russian), p. 98.
+ + +
Uncut Hair and Beards of the Clergy
You often state that clergy must not cut their hair and beards. There are church canons to support this and certainly it is part of church tradition. But you also know that St. Paul says that men should not have long hair and that certain church canons even allow for a monk with hair that is too long to cut it, as well as to cut his hair when he is away from the monastery. I would like your guidance on this apparent contradiction in tradition. (Fr. J.K., MA)
Your comments are intelligently stated and do not, as is often the case, seek to dispense with a difficult discipline—the uncut hair and beard of Orthodox clergy—by posing false contradictions in practice. The tradition of maintaining uncut hair and beard among the monastic and married clergy no doubt traces back to the ascetics of the desert. Just as monastic practice has influenced parish worship, so monastic dress and grooming have played an observable role in establishing the standard for clerical dress among married Priests. Except among "Westernized" Orthodox, with their anti-monastic bias, this influence by the barometer of spiritual life, the monastic estate, on the so-called "secular" clergy has always been thought positive.
Since an ascetic monastic foregoes the cutting of his hair and beard in order to avoid vanity, this custom has a practical purpose. Thus, it is obvious that a monastic would also avoid looking effeminate or styling his hair. It is for this reason that, if his hair gets too long, such that it resembles that of a woman, a monastic may ask his superior to cut it. When he goes out into the world, too, he should, in such circumstances, trim his hair and keep it tied up in back, as is the custom in the Greek and some Slavic Churches. This is in keeping with the spirit of St. Paul's admonition against men having long hair like that of women, when this admonition is read in context.
What we must understand, here, is that the cutting of hair in all of these instances means nothing more than trimming off hair that falls below the middle of the back. We are not talking about the modern haircut, which is, in fact, the equivalent of the desecration of the head that led to Samson's loss of strength and power. Clergymen are, therefore, unjustified in cutting their hair in the modern style, which is almost unknown in Christian history, until recent centuries. With regard to shaving, the Old Testament, the Church Fathers, and the Canons forbid a clergyman to cut his beard. One of the observations made by the Orthodox against the Popes during the union councils (and repeated by a number of Orthodox Fathers in modern times) was that, as they began to deviate from the Apostolic Faith, they also, oddly enough, began to shave off their beards. Moreover, not only should clergymen not shave, according to various Church authorities, but many holy men, such as St. Kosmas Aitolos, hold that laymen should let their beards, or least a moustache, grow naturally.
All of this does not, of course, mean that an Orthodox clergyman should not be clean and well groomed. The Canons allow for the trimming of the moustache (primarily for the purpose of insuring care in taking Holy Communion), and certainly by economy a Priest can trim his beard slightly, if he has to hold a secular job. Long hair should also be tied up in back or tucked under the collar, for which reason it rarely presents a problem for a working Priest who truly wishes to abide by canonical exactitude. (And by Priest, here, we mean, of course, both the Presbyter and the Deacon.) Nor would we argue that a beard and uncut hair are the sure signs of a good Priest. They are, as Bishop Chrysostomos of Etna always tells us, no more or less important to a Priest than "feathers are to a bird."
Finally, in anticipation of those who oppose the canonical disciplines placed on Orthodox clergy, let us acknowledge that some monks, in the history of the Church, maintained a tonsure which involved cutting hair from the top of the head. This was one of many customs which did not last, and is not an argument against the living tradition of the Church as it has survived today, which assigns to monastics and "secular" clergy alike the discipline of leaving the hair and beard uncut, This discipline, combined with adherence to the canonical dress of the clergy (in Church, on the street, and at home), is a powerful deterrent against improper behavior on the part of Priests, who should be moral exemplars for the people, and provides a vivid witness of the peculiar nature to the people of God, the Christians.
St. Tikhon and Clerical Appearance
When Patriarch St. Tikhon was Bishop in America early this century, he ordered his clergy to shave and wear Western clerical dress. What does this say of your "traditional" dress? (J.K., NJ)
We have seen only one directive attributed to St. Tikhon on this subject, and it by no means "orders" clergy in America under his jurisdiction to abandon traditional Orthodox dress and grooming. It is also well known that the late Father Georges Florovsky disputed the authenticity of this directive. Whatever the case, St. Tikhon did openly speak of a distinction between the "essentials" and "accidentals" of the Faith, allowing for a number of innovations, including some in clerical appearance. A distinction of the kind made by the Saint is atypical in Orthodoxy, wherein "externals" (matters of apparent accident) are thought to reflect and to be inseparable from an "internal" (or essential) reality. St. Tikhon of course embraced this principle, and his deviation from it merely entailed practical accommodations necessitated by difficulties facing the early Orthodox immigration to America. It is both dishonest and an insult to the Saint's memory that his use of justifiable oikonomia in what was then a relatively new mission is now invoked as a standard of Orthodox practice in a local Church that is more than two centuries old.
From Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XII, No. 3, pp. 19-21.