new thread
I had a very "interesting" conversation with a person who thought that long hair is only meant for females to have and that it is a sin for a male to have long hair. From his point of view: The fact that males should have short hair and females long hair, is so to be able to regonize the distinguising characteristics between men and women better.
I, of course didn't agree! So after listening to his power speech about why males should not be allowed to wear their hair long, I interrupted his totally wrong point of view by saying:
"If males weren't allowed to have long hair, then why were they created to have the ability to grow hair just like women do?
I mean, if it is a sin for a man to have long hair, then he wouldn't have been created this way. So I really don't know where you are going with this statement you just made, because it doesn't make sense and it is not correct."
Of course, he had a bunch of things to say back (totally off track because he couldn't give me a straight reply), and of course I had twice the amount of replies to give in return, but I'll spare you the details. I just can't understand that there are some of these so called "Peace Dudes" out there saying these things.
Anyways just thought I'd share my day of interesting interaction with someone who clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.
Thee Longhaired Gal
Yup, we were all designed to have long hair. The majority out there are fighting their destiny. Oh, well, if they can't tell the difference between a long-haired man and a long-haired woman, that's not my problem.
Did he also feel it was a sin for a woman to cut her hair, which would be consistent with what he thought he was saying?
According to him, yes...but he sayed alot of things that wasn't correct and had nothing to back it up. Even saying it was a sin for me as a female to interact with males who have long hair! Of course I did correct him in that saying.
...like me? Sounds as though he's a bit envious that long haired men are thinning the potential pool of mates for him. ;-)
JE
And he was likely repeating thoughts that weren't even his own. Puppetry is powerful. It's interesting, even when men are in drag, often one is able to tell that they are men. Hair is the least of the characteristics that define us or not. It's interesting. The same folks who often want to argue morality based on what is natural are left without a straight answer when the natural ability of men and women to grow long hair is brought up.
Thanks for hanging in there for all of us today. I am sure you were much more pleasant about it than I would have been.
Robert
But by that logic, we could ask "Why were people given the ability to lie, cheat, steal, and generally misbehave if we weren't meant to?"
I grew up in churches that taught/thought this way, and I have many extended family members who still think this way. The typical response follows these lines: God allows male hair to grow long like female hair as a "test" for those who would be righteous, who will cut their hair short in obedience to God's will, sacrificing their own wills, wishes, desires, preferences, for God's... (This is not how I think, nor how I understand God at all, not even remotely.)
If this individual has trouble recognizing men from women without the need for short hair on men, then he needs lessons in biology. When did using scissors become necessary for determining the male sex? (YIKES!!) Hair length isn't something meant to differentiate the sexes, but it shows that men and women are from the same species: bald bodies (mostly...) and flowing heads of hair. How nice. :-)
JE
Men have always had long hair.Just look at history.
Not so, but hairless faces are. [grin]
Bill
I hope not to open a can of worms here but I feel that guy is out to lunch with his statement. What about Samson? He had God's favor and he had long hair. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (God is unchanging.) God must still find favor in men with long hair today. Absalom
True enough. It is only the opinions of those who write the religious texts which changes !!
Isn't Jesus always depicted with long hair? Go figure.
I've heard that there are biblical mentions of penalties for men dressing as women and vice versa, but at the time of the writings men wore skirts and long hair while women wore pants. Again, go figure. (Don't have references to back this one up; just hearsay.)
By the way: Hi, I'm new here. I've never had long hair but am thinking about trying it. I'll post a new thread about that.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion, even when they're clearly wrong. ;-)
I see plenty of people with short hair and I KNOW when it's a woman. :) Seriously though, I think that guy has gotten caught looking at too many men with long hair, possibly thinking it was a woman...or maybe not! LOL!
--
Splat
All that St. Paul wrote was this:
"Doesn't even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? "
Long hair is NEVER called a SIN.
And notice how St. Paul uses the word NATURE and NOT God.
So I believe he was referring to baldness (Nature teaching)
and perhaps to the fact that working hard with long hair(as opposed
to just sitting around) would be more difficult.
Also, there may have been a 'class' of men with
long hair who lived SOFT lives.
Anyway, the key words are DISHONOR and NATURE...
and NOT 'Sin' and 'God'
...the source of what your friend is saying is from social conditioning. Women weren't boxing two decades ago either. Would your friend think it's a sin for women to box or to fight in war, both of which weren't done till fairly recently? Along with your line of thinking, TLG, women have the ability to make fists and have arms to box, and they can pull a trigger on a gun. I think it's just the way he's grown up. Also, since you said the word "sin", I'm assuming his religion might play a part in his rigid view. Of course, I agree with you!
Whislt I disagree totally that it is a 'sin' for males to have long hair (I am also uncomfortable with the word 'sin' as it implies religious beliefs, but im going to use it in the context it was provided in), just because they can grow it does not always mean they should. Just as some females opt for shorter hair styles because it suits thier facial features better, some males will also not suit thier hair long as it does not comliment the way they look. I have seen guys sporting long hair and it did not suit them at all, but there are also some of whom having longer hair really suits them. So in the lighter context of the word sin, I agree it is a sin for some males to have long hair as they are doing themselves no favours, but for some it looks great.
Read the ENTIRE statement and you will end up WONDERing why
women can get away with SUPER SHORT hair!:
"Doth not
nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a
shame unto him. But if a woman have long hair; it is a glory to
her, for her hair is given her for a covering"
[Paul has two more points to cover. In anticipation of the
question, "What about long hair as a covering, what is it
for?", Paul explains that long hair is important to a woman
because it is an expression of her personal glory. "Doth not
nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a
shame unto him. But if a woman have long hair; it is a glory to
her, for her hair is given her for a covering" (vv 14, 15).
Nature itself testifies to the reproach of long hair in man.
God allows the keeping of long hair in man in a special
situation, that of the Nazirite or Nazarite (one separated to
God -Numbers 6:2). According to the law of the Nazirite (who
can be male or female) one who separates himself or herself to
God must not cut his or her hair, and in doing so a man must
be prepared to bear the reproach of nature and other men as he
finds his joy, peace and satisfaction in God Alone.]
Actually, Pentecostal churches and non-denominational churches often do require their female members to wear their hair long, i.e. uncut (slight difference), just as they require the men's hair to be cut short. This is based primarily on that Pauline passage. However, I have a much simpler response to this whole subject. Paul was wrong. Paul was a product of his day and age. He was a Roman citizen already well known for being a zealot. For the many excellent passages that he wrote after his conversion, there were -- shall we say -- less "inspired" passages in there, too. So, to Paul, the obvious answer is that, no, nature does not teach that it is a shame for a man to have long hair. Funky, imperfect human societies teach that. So Paul was wrong. Big deal. We all get things wrong now and then. This doesn't negate the overall value of the Bible, but I think it reveals its human element, which verifies its authenticity and grants it increased historical value. The pings and foibles of human nature are truly fascinating, especially because apparently, God still manages to work thru humans all the same. Poor Paul, so incredibly human. :-)
JE
I don't know if I'd spare the time to argue with someone who can only talk nonsense.
In the words of King Avallach from Stephen Lawhead's 'Taliesin':
"I have never considered it polite to comment upon the ravings of the insane, nor profitable to engage in arguments with lunatics."
I wanted to make my point clear to him :o)
