Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne
That is the main part I don't agree with, because scripture does say that if a woman has long hair, it's given for a covering, and that, to me, means that no other covering is needed. However, if she doesn't have long hair, she needs a covering....but I don't think this is a heaven or hell issue, nor do I believe that God's hearing aid isn't on when women pray who have short hair.
Paul referred to a custom, not a law. Customs change with time.
|
I am in the throes of moving today so I am very limited in my response.
When the text says that long hair is a covering, from NATURE's TEACHING, it is saying nothing about hair replacing veils. It is simply saying that nature's example of why a woman should wear a man made veiling of some sort is the fact that a natural veil of long hair suits a woman and not a man. Since natural veils of long hair look good on a woman, Paul is saying that confirms from NATURE that a woman ought to be covered with a veil and not a man. Nature is only one support proof for the veil among the others Paul listed previous to this.
My only thoughts about this are that this symbol is not recognized here in North America as it is in the middle east. So I think it is a moot issue to a degree. But it is not focusing on long hair at all. Long hair was only nature's example for a veiling. The issue is a veil.
I claim it is north american ignorance of the eastern custom of veils, here, that has changed this to an issue of long hair. Long hair is only a SIDELINE issue, and used as NATURE'S SUPPORT EXAMPLE for the veil.
Threaded Mode
