True.

From your deceived perspective, yes.:bubble

To me, the only valid conclusion one can reach is that "for this cause" refers to the fallen angels, and that a woman identifies with their rebellion by dishonoring her husband, and her God, through cut hair.

Spiritual consequences based on an outward sign is not some new thing.

When the angel of death passed through the land of Egypt, the houses covered by blood on the doorposts were spared.

The mark of obedience was the visible protection that identified their obedience.

It dishonors God and her husband.

Paul said it was a shame.

I feel it identifies one with our enemy.

Same thing with the serpent in the wilderness. A physical emblem was used to bring protection. The emblem itself was not powerful. Their obedience was.

Exactly.

Or we could ask Moses about the time God met him in the way and sought to kill him--when he was on his way to Egypt to do God's bidding.

The reason?

He neglected to comply in an area of outward obedience--circumcision.

I'm feeling more comfortable with my position that this passage refers to the rebellion of fallen angels. This take is quite different than the RR idea.

It doesn't say "uncut" anywhere....it says long. I believe that what is being discussed here as applying to women with cut hair in reality applies to women with intentionally (not medically) shorn (Paul had his head shorn in Cenchrea and it was not "trimmed") or shaven hair.

That has been the way I have leaned, for the most part.

I do not agree with some of RR's conclusions.

With that said, however, I want to stress that she is often misrepresented by her critics.