Oh no!! Women who cut their hair are going to get killed!!!! Gasp!!!! Good grief. Talk about scare tactics.

Typical misrepresentation of what I said.

The principle here is that disobedience brings consequences.

Principles? Whats that?

It's remarkable the lengths folks will go to question biblical authority. Some things are just so. Why did God choose tongues, create man, mosquitos and all sorts of other unanswerable questions.

Why does God require a distinction between sexes? Why did Paul give us 1 Ccorinthians 11? I don't know if some things are answerable. There is a lot to be said for simple obedience to the Word.

Long hair, yes. Uncut hair, no. Otherwise a man can have hair three feet down his back and it still be short since he trims it.

But I do agree with Coonskinner's thoughts on the ark and the cherubims, although the idea of cherubims being "angels" is debatable. The cherubims are the four beasts in Rev 5 and they claim they were redeemed from every tribe and nation of men. Angels are not redeemed.

The POWER on the woman's head is the authority of her husband, as her "head" is her personal authority. Since the physical head represents authority, seeing one's MIND is located in one's actual head, the woman's covering on her actual physical head speaks of this submission, indicating that with her husband, she covers her head since he is her head. There is only ONE HEAD on a body. And if a woman is one flesh with her husband, and God made him her head, she indicates that by covering her head. She hides her physical head, as it were, to indicate her husband is her authroity, while his head remains uncovered. A visual message. The important thing si the submission in her spirit.

I have seen women who covered their heads in whatever way they think this chapter teaches -- some hair and some a veil or hat -- but were downright rebellious and unsubmissive to their husbands. The issue is ONLY A SYMBOL. Just as the SYMBOL of bread and wine in the same chapter in communion. But the symbol is still strongly taught here, at any rate. God is very concerned over SOME symbols even now.

Again, I propose this is not hair but a veil. However, in our culture veils do not mean that in the eyes of the people, so the veiling issue is moot in and of itself today.

It is not anointing power in the context, but the power of her husband's authority. The verse is saying she as authority OVER HER. Not magical power exisiting on her physical head.

BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS could mean a few different things, while the passage does not specify which. It could mean the angels are given testimony by the woman that SHE SUBMITS, whereas SOME angels rebelled and fell.

Or it could mean that the angels who are ministering spirits sent to minister and SERVE we who are heirs of salvation cannot properly do their work with us if we are not in submission. If angels SERVE, how can they work with people who do not SUBMIT and SERVE as well, as in the role of a woman obeying her husband?

The guys who used to paddle me in the office when I got in fights at school?

I personally believe a person's interpretation of I Corinthians 11 serves as a pretty accurate litmus test of how they view the authority of Scripture.

Are they looking for loopholes and minimalist living, or do they want to please God?

I think the idea that a woman MUST OBEY this chapter and cover her head in the way she genuinely feels it is meant to be covered -- again, some hair, others veiling or hat -- without the understanding that it is a symbol of submission and she needs to first submit to her husband makes the issue moot entirely for her. It seems people veer away from the truth when they stress the importance to OBEY 1 COR 11, instead of seeing the symbol of submission and ensuring THAT is in order before stressing the act of covering the head in and of itself. Coveirng the head is part and parcel with the SUBMISSION it represents. And I have to admit I hear more "COVER YOUR HEAD, WOMEN" then I do "Ensure you submit to your husband as he gives honour and love to you" which is all represents.

It's like forgetting the whole point of the submission issue to her husband, when just the demand to WEAR THE COVERING is promoted. It has come to the day when people do not consider if the submission is there for the covering action to match it, but just whether or not the covering action is present. The outward display has become more important than the submission, and whereas the submission in question in the chapter IS ACTUALLY for a woman to SUBMIT to her husband, it has CHANGED to become a submission to the demand of the preacher to wear the covering. Both acts of submission are of course important, but nothing is said about the submission ot her husband which is the whole point, in contrast to submission to the preacher.

If it's actual disobedience, sure. But God doesn't play games where he puts something so important in an obscure place without really saying what he means and then says "I'm going to get you for that!" When something is sin, God is plain.

I see the value of what you are saying. We seem to excel with rules, but struggle with principles sometimes.