new thread
Seeing as alot of you on this board are Americans and Americans are usually very religious. I was wondering what you thought about a passage in the bible.
It says that a man should not cover his head and a woman should not uncover it. Basically meaning men should have short hair and women should have long.
Why if this book was written so long ago does it say this?
And it is a bit stupid seeing as jesus and his diciples all had long hair!?!?
Hmm.
There's no mistaking that Christian religions that accept every verse of the Bible tend to view longhaired men in a negative light. You have to ask yourself if you want to be part of something that is blatantly prejudicial towards our social group. I know I don't.
Hypocrisy is the prominent feature of any organized religion.
That's true! I find it amazing how they think having hair shaved off is right and having it long is wrong. The only reason people are thinking it is because of social bullying and brainwashing. I'm sure in the original bible it didn't say anything about long hair!
St Paul was not ignorant, Bill, he had the equivalent of a PhD.
However the passage quoted refers to a shawl or head-covering not hair. In Corinth, a seaport, there were prostitues aplenty. A Christian woman going though the streets with her hair uncovered could be mistaken for a street-girl.
The Romans wore their hair cropped short, the Greeks fancied longer hair, and the Jews among others usually wore their hair shoulder length or longer.
Sometimes the Bible is keen that believers should not be mistaken for the opposite sex, so conventions were adopted. It does NOT mean God is worried about how long we wear our hair! He's more worried about how we relate to one another.
Well said, and true.
No he didn't. They didn't have such a thing back then. They didn't have lots of stuff. That was my point.
Bill
Reading these couple things make one thing come to mind. Do not let the misguided actions of some followers (the people who put more emphasis on things like hair length) take away from the message of the Leader (in this certain case, Christ Jesus).
People mess up, no one is perfect, and if we were, Jesus would never have had to exist on earth. He taught and He lived the life, walked the walk. Please do not let these other people give you a negative impression of the faith.
We are all hypocrites to some extent, and to put hypocracy on the shoulders of organized religion is quite a statement. Its easy to not be a hypocrite if you make up your owns views as you go along, conforming your morlas to your life situations. Organized religions have a moral code in most cases, and people don't always live up to that.
Where Christianity is (or at least is supposed) to be differet is that we aknowledge that we are hypocrites, and ask God's forgiveness for our shortcomings. I am a Christian, but that doesn't make me perfect and doesn't make me holier than thou... if anything it makes me worse... I know the Way and I don't follow it all the time. I'm a worse sinner than everyone here...
Don't let the actions of some destroy the essence of the others.
~Rome (rome.sc@gmail.com)
Thing is most Christians sees their walk with God like an organized religion. Jesus didnt come to establish a religion but to establish a relationship between God and people. But these days they seem to place more value on organization than God, and thats why alot of these silly rules came.
"These silly rules" were written thousands of years ago. They aren't made in "these days", but people attempt to directly apply them to life today as opposed to understanding the heart behind the rule and understand it in the context of it writing.
According to the latest research, Jewish menof Jesus' day wore their hair
in a long braid that read half way down the back.
This braid was usually kept rolled up under a turban of some kind.
Also: Men were required to wear beards and any man who shaved it off
was considered unmanly and perhaps even effeminate.
What research is this? & where/how could I see/read it for msyelf?
The fact that I am Jewish, longhaired, a history major and really interested in religious history in particular impels me to ask you!
And how do you know it doesn't mean that men aren't to wear hats? Hmmm?
;)
...he was really referring to a certain segment of society: namely the longhaired men of his day.
Hard working men could not afford to wear their hair long and so many (not all) men had short hair. The men who wore their hair long in Paul's
day usually either stood around doing nothing or were involved in
some forms of male prostitution.
The scriptures actually use several different terms when putting down certain groups of men:
The sodomites were NOT homosexsuals per se, but were involved in sexual favors for pay or
worked for the temple of some god or goddess, where they performed sexual acts.
BUT people forget that the Bible was just as hard on another group of men...namely, the catamites. Catamite meens "soft" in Greek
and we know that these men lived 'soft' lives and dressed in feminine clothing. To a cerain extent
they may also have been involved in sexual activities.
But Paul came down just as hard on female prostitutes. The point being
that since the body is the temple of God, prostitution was just about one of the
worst things one could do.
Then again, Paul includes DRUNKARDS in the ame group as catamites, sodomites and prostitutes! So he played
no favorites.
My point is that LONG HAIR on men back in Paul's was not a bad thing,
but the men who happened to have long hair were involved in certain activities.
When for instance Paul says: "Does not NATURE itself teach that it is a shame..."
Notice the two words used are NATURE and SHAME and NOT God and sin!
That's right, Paul NEVER says that GOD says long hair is a sin...
....he says NATURE teaches us that it is a SHAME...and that is a MAJOR DIFFERENCE.
So HOW does NATURE teach us that men having long hair is a SHAME??? Does not nature teach us that hair, when left alone, grows long?!
No, no, evidently Paul was referring to baldness.
In fact, in the Middle Ages, the months used to shave the tops of their heads so that there would
be nothing between them and God.
TODAY long hair does NOT mean what it meant in Paul's day and I think he
would tell religious leaders to lighten up already.
The whole point of Paul's epistle was not about the long hair itself but rather
he was referring to their activities.
Today's religious leaders would do well to study Paul's writings in the context of their day.
Amen!
being a christian myself i can tell you about this. first of all no where in the bible does it say jesus or his diciples had long hair, in fact in the bible it says"the hair doeth the day was short hair" or sumthing like that anyway we can also tell because of statues of caesar or pontius pilate which is also on coins that have been found, it was most likely that men wore there hair like his.it says"does not nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair its a shame unto him? but if a woman have long hair it is to glorify her. but yet again there are verses like"dont cut the corners of thy head and other scriptures. most think they had long hair cause the nazarites had long hair for a certain amount of time. but jesus was not a nazarite cause he ate and drank from the vine. anywho, also there is the story of absalom which had long hair and god said he didnt have a belmish on him but yet he was rebellious and did not take the vow, but yet he later died cause his hair got caught in a tree. also samson's hair was cut and his strength left him, thats because he made a vow to god. but i think it might also say whatever is acceptable is ok. i know some christians are really hard on this subject. i think we'll know for sure when we meet god when our time comes. here is a really good site with all the verses relating to hair, take a look http://www.metalforjesus.org/guest2.htm
Seems this "discussion" comes up, at this site, from time to time. I, personally, think it has little relevance to today's time in history. If you take the Bible literally, then good for you...if you think otherwise...then good for you too! As to the matter of long hair...on men...(to be continued)...
That passage was written by a man who never graduated from high school, never traveled out of his region, and had never been on the Internet. The lack of these opportunties was not his fault, but by today's standards he was nevertheless ignorant. Why would you let the opinions of such a man affect your decisions in life?
Bill
Exactly. I am not any religion apart from my own. I think or even know to a certain extent that the bible is just a novel based on one mans thoughts. Which seem very deluded to be honest!
A.) the Bible has many parts that are historically and archeologically accurate and "proven" to have existed or been on record.
B.) The Bible has dozens of authors... and dozens of books within it.
C.) Calling the most widely read book in history, which contains some of the most moving passages in all of literature, most beautiful songs and poetry ever written (not to mention the most influencial book in the whole of Western culture) "very deluded"... that just that speaks of ignorance to be honest. Don't mean to be insulting, but thats a very brash comment to make based on pure opinion and incorrect assumptions.
BRAVO!!!
...Paul was a VERY WELL educated man. He was fluent in Hebrew and Greek. In fact he studied under the world (Roman world) famous Gamaliel, one of the greatest teachers, "a teacher...honored by the entire people."
True, Paul did not attend high school--because there weren't any in those days.
Peter, on the other hand, was truly an UNeducated fisherman, but when he was inspired
he spoke so eloquently that he amazed even the scholars and scribes of his day.
But all this is beside the point to those who believe that the scriptures were inspired.
And he surely found nothing of substance to study in Hebrew, Greek, Pig Latin, or Klingon on longhaired men in the first century. Just about everything written on that subject dates to recent times.
Bill
...unless we happen to believe that he was inspired.
And that is why I was once told that those who believe in inspiration as the true source of the Biblical writings should never argue or debate about the scriptures with people who do not believe that they were divinely inspired.
They tell us that when believers argue with unbelievers, they
should not argue on the basis of criteria or standards derived
from the Bible. To argue that way, they say, would be biased.
They should rather present to the unbeliever an unbiased
argument, one that makes no religious assumptions pro or con,
one that is neutral. We should, on this view, use criteria and
standards that the unbeliever himself can accept. So logic, facts, experience, reason, and such become the sources of
truth. Divine revelation, especially Scripture, is
systematically excluded.
This argument may appear to be simple common sense: since God
and Scripture are precisely the matters in question, they
obviously must not make assumptions about them in their argument.
That would be circular thinking. It would also put an end to
evangelism, for if they demand that the unbeliever assume
God's existence and the authority of Scripture in order to enter the debate, he will never consent. Communication between
believer and unbeliever will be impossible. Therefore, they
must avoid making any such demands and seek to argue on a
neutral basis. They may even boast to the unbeliever that their
argument presupposes only the criteria that he himself readily accepts (whether logic, fact, consistency, or whatever.
And that is why arguing or debating between believers and non-believers
is virtually impossible, since one believes that Paul wrote his books while the believers make the claim that God is the true Author.
And that is why I never participate in arguements about
religion--or even politics for that matter.
To each its own...
Didn't God say in Leviticus (19:27): "You must NOT cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip the edges of your beard"?
Since God will judge me at the time of my death (NOT St. Paul), I'm going to listen to God!!
Some other verses to ponder which state the opposite:
Numbers 6
4 As long as he is a Nazirite, he must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, not even the seeds or skins.
5 “‘During the entire period of his vow of separation no razor may be used on his head. He must be holy until the period of his separation to the LORD is over; he must let the hair of his head grow long.
Leviticus 19
27 “‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
2 Samuel 14
25 In all Israel there was not a man so highly praised for his handsome appearance as Absalom. From the top of his head to the sole of his foot there was no blemish in him.
26 Whenever he cut the hair of his head — he used to cut his hair from time to time when it became too heavy for him — he would weigh it, and its weight was two hundred shekels [That is, about 5 pounds (about 2.3 kilograms)] by the royal standard.
This passage is actually referring to wearing a head covering, or "hat". There were many social implications being made in this passage, that only the scholars and people who do their research will understand. Some Christians take this litterally, and women wear head coverings everytime they enter a church. Others understand it as part of the social fabric of the culture and time period.
Hi,
If you want a serious discussion, you firstly have to be able to not only quote the passage, but cite it so we can go look it up and see exactly what it says. This is very important for several reasons: We need to see the context in which the passage is placed. We need to know the time in biblical history and the circumstances and its author, if known. Finally, there are usually footnotes in bibles containing comments from theologians, and biblical scholars that clarify the meaning of a passage along with its translation history going back to the earliest texts, which can affect its meaning.
Secondly, no one really knows what Jesus looked like. All of the art shows him looking like anything from Fabio to the guy in the hyperboard logo, but these are just works of the artists' imaginations. In reality he could have looked like Ghandi or Henry Kissinger for all we know. For some reason, people want to think that he looked like this skinny little emaciated skin and bones hippie guy. But he had no difficulty coming up with food when needed, so I don't know where that comes from.
so at this point, without some useful attribution for your quote, any discussion devolves into one of those pointless "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type conversations.
I'm a Roman Catholic. I do believe in the Bible as God's word, and I strive to grow closer to God. That said, I don't believe that it's a necessity for Christian men to have short hair, nor that it is meant to be opposed by Biblical teachings. Someone already posted a link discussing it from a Biblical perspective, so consider checking that out.
From my personal experience, I am a musician at my local Catholic church. I've played double bass (AKA upright bass) there for a few years now. My hair is past shoulder length, and none of the priests there have ever even approached me about cutting my hair. As a visible member of my parish, I would think that if the length of my hair was a problem, someone would at least have mentioned it to me. I hope the criticism of some people regarding this topic hasn't left the wrong impression about our faith.
hi, i am new and i was going to wait until my hair had grown a little longer to talk to others on this board, but i thought it was really neat to see that there is another Roman Catholic on this board, so here goes nothing. i have been growing my hair out since august 23 2006, 1:04pm. that is the date that i last got my hair cut, you might say that i have been keeping track of the time.
frankly, i was an anti-longhair for most of my life until i turned 14 or 15 but then i realized that was because of my parents. nothing against them but they or at least my mom firmly believes that men with long hair are sinners and refused to even consider letting me grow my hair out. again, nothing against my mom, both of my parents are good people.
anyway, i am now 18 so i can grow my hair as long as i want to. i intend to go for terminal length. so wish me luck.
why did i suddenly see long hair in a favorable light? well, one halloween my sister and i were in the mall and she pulled me into one of those stores that change according to the holidays, and she started to look at stuff, and there was this wig section near the make-up and i picked up an 18 inch brown wig because that is my hair color and it was the only normal one. i tried it on and my sister comes around the and of the aisle, looks right at me and starts to turn around and then she does a double-take and says ,"
keith, is that you? wow, you look hot!". a quick look in the mirror confirmed what i had never thought possible, i looked great with long hair!
i have rarely met with any else who gives me anything but flak for making that decision. my mother may never forgive me but i am going to go for terminal!
Good for you, Keith! I think you are on the right path.
Shawn
Having some formal eduaation on these issues, I cannot bear to read through all the posts, having sampled them.
The Bible is not one book, but many books, written, edited, revised, by many people over time. Truly it is the most important single book in Western Civilization, the least read, and the most poorly understood. And it contains a dialog among different points of view, and is not univocal
Any one who reads it carefully will realize that it contains many contradictions, yet, it does also contain an extremely high ethical standard which has nothing to do with sex or hair length, but has to do with honesty, fairness, kindness, a forgiving spiritm, catholicity, not in the Roman sense, but in the real sence of catholicity as universality, that is the responsibility I owe to my own ethnic group is the same that I ose to the stranger.
It is truly amazing that these teachings emerged from particular cultures, and it is not surprizing that the accidents of specific cultures have come to be mistaken for the point of the teaching rather than the medium of the teaching.
What is natural in one culture is not understood to be natural in another. This failure to understand the distinction between culture and nature is the basis on which much foolish foreign policy in The US had been advanced, to the serious loss of US credibility in the rest of the world.
My formal training in religious and bibilical understanding was at Yale, but I suggest anyone who wants to undersand the evolution of our Western religious tradition read:
1. Any of the writings of Barr Ehrman who teaches at UNC Chapel Hill where I got my undergraduate degree, or listen to his tapes available from THE TEACHING COMPANY, or your local library.
2. The easiest overview could be found in James Michner's novel, THE SOURCE, who in his own clodding style. explains the evolution of the western religious tradition.
OR,
3. In any of the writings of Karen Armstrong, former nun, until she saw the light, but who has an incredibale grasp on the Western Religious tradition.
4., and for fun, you might want to look at the work of Elaine Pagels, and I suggest her recent book called BEYOND BELIEF, in which she makes a functional distincetion between faith as beliving in doctrine and faith as trust in the essential goodness of the creation.
Personally, I have never met any of these authors, but I assure you that all of them would urge you to celebrate your individuality with long hair, and to see this proclaimation of your individuality as an affirmation that you treat others as you wish to be treated.
CALEDONIAN
\ Seeing as alot of you on this board are Americans and Americans are usually very religious. I was wondering what you thought about a passage in the bible.