Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne
I can't help but wonder, if a man is defined as uncovered by not having long hair and must remove it or be considered covered, why is a woman not considered covered by having long hair, or am I misunderstanding something?
|
From our perspective, you are missing something here.
A man is not uncovered by removing hair, but rather by not wearing an actual veil. Hair is not an issue here, but just supportive of the veil argument Paul is making. Uncovering the head is not removing hair for either man nor woman. It is removing the veil.
Quote:
It's like those who say a woman has long hair only if it's uncut, but a man with cut hair to his shoulders still has long hair.
Is hair a covering at all?
|
It is only mentioned as NATURE'S EXAMPLE of a covering. that is why Pau lasks, "Does not even nature itself teach you?" The teaching is about the veil.
Paul said the angels teach us, and cretive order teaches. So does nature. Natural long hair is only an example. Since the appearance of long natural hair on a man is shameful, this is a hint from nature that a man ought not wear a veil.
This is something only done during prayer and prophesying telling us it cannot be hair, otherwise if it was hair, it would be said for ALL TIME. COVER is a verb. A woman cannot do any action for times of prayer or prophesying to cover her head if it is spekaing about hair. But if it is a veil, as we say it is, then it all makes sense.