Hair and Nature?

[Disciple4life]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Nature and the Bible teach that men should have beards.

Isn't the point that men should look like men and women should look like women?

Why do Apostolic Christians argue constantly about the letter of the law?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by justlookin

I think it's subjective.

I've found that men who let their hair grow long (whatever long is) never 'fixes' it, it's long and it's flowing freely. On the other hand, women with long hair (whatever long is) will many times style their hair so that it's really no longer, in appearance, than women who have shorter (whatever shorter is) hair. For example, both women will expose the neck in their hair styles. So, what's the difference between the woman who has longish (whatever longish is) hair that is above the shoulders and the woman who styles her hair, though it be longer (whatever long is) so that it's appearance is the same as the woman with the shorter hair?

Here's a couple of examples, one with hair longer than the other but visually about the same.





In my subjective view, the woman's hair in the top image is more appealing. Is that nature telling me, instructing me, or is that just visually a personal preference? And would the bottom hair length be long on a man?

Back to the question of how short is short and how long is long. Or maybe the question should be what is short and what is long?

No. See definition of what Nature means in first post.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No. See definition of what Nature means in first post.

ok, well, definitions of any word morph over time, Prax; i note your def did not encompass my def...well, maybe peripherally. the lexicon (which is prolly as bad as a new strong's ) seemed to vary...

[justlookin]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

5 sn Paul does not mean nature in the sense of "the natural world" or "Mother Nature." It denotes "the way things are" because of God's design.

Originally Posted by justlookin

Or maybe the question should be what is short and what is long?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

No. See definition of what Nature means in first post.

What conclusion would you come to when you apply the definition you posted in the first post to the photos above? In other words, which photo is showing God's design?

We then can take the answer and apply it to these photos.

[votivesoul]

Fun fact:

Our word comet (as in the "celestial body moving about the sun, usually in a highly eccentric orbit, consisting of a central mass surrounded by an envelope of dust and gas that may form a tail that streams away from the sun") comes from the same Greek word used by Paul for long.

In fact, ancient Greeks used to call comets "hairy stars" or aster kometes. So Paul's use of the word would have brought about a mental image to all the Greek readers of the text, of a head with a tail of "hair" flowing from it, just as a comet.

All comets have tails that fan out behind them. Their actual length varies per comet. But the comets themselves do nothing to lengthen or shorten their own tails.

I would venture then to say that "long", in terms of hair, should be understood in a similar way.

A woman whose hair resembles the tail of a comet, without adding to or taking away from it's natural ability to grow, is Biblically acceptable.

A man, whose hair resembles the tail of a comet, who is not doing anything to interrupt it's natural ability to grow, is shaming his head, and so, would find himself on the side of Biblical unacceptability.

This would mean that a man who has hair flowing down his back, but cuts off an inch or two, is still not in the right, whereas a man whose hair might be over the ear and around the collar, while appearing "long" to some, still is in the right, under his own conscience and head (which is Christ) since it doesn't tail down like a comet.

[shazeep]

nice

Originally Posted by votivesoul

comets themselves do nothing to lengthen or shorten their own tails.

well, by revolving eccentrically, they do actually lengthen or shorten their tails?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by shazeep

nicewell, by revolving eccentrically, they do actually lengthen or shorten their tails?

There is no sentient-conscience effort put into it.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ok, well, definitions of any word morph over time, Prax; i note your def did not encompass my def...well, maybe peripherally. the lexicon (which is prolly as bad as a new strong's ) seemed to vary...

They morph over time so we can pick and choose which ever we want?

My Lexicon is as bad as a Strongs? And you say that why?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by justlookin

What conclusion would you come to when you apply the definition you posted in the first post to the photos above? In other words, which photo is showing God's design?

We then can take the answer and apply it to these photos.

The definition was applied to a word used in scriptures, not yours nor mine subjective feelings regarding pictures

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

They morph over time so we can pick and choose which ever we want?

ah no, don't know about that--i think one should pick the def--when there are multiple possibilities--that fits the situation. Our understanding of the def of Nature didn't seem to make sense to me here (either), so i was just trying some new shoes on there. Like a "hope" = 'confident expectation' thing.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

My Lexicon is as bad as a Strongs? And you say that why?

oh, hmm, i meant the lex quote that I gave for "Nature," (i think), and i just noted that your orig def wasn't part of it? Biblehub, for what it's worth. Surely yours is better. I just found a resource for the old Strong's, interestingly enough, hmm