Uncut Hair

[good samaritan]

Also if there is a specific length for hair to reach in order for it to be considered long then that would alienate large nationalities of people whose hair doesn't lengthen to what most would consider long. But if long means to let it grow(in other words leave to itself to grow) then it fits for everyone.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Also if there is a specific length for hair to reach in order for it to be considered long then that would alienate large nationalities of people whose hair doesn't lengthen to what most would consider long. But if long means to let it grow(in other words leave to itself to grow) then it fits for everyone.

But in that case it still conflicts with the use of the word between 15 and 16! Why even use "LONG"?

I've come to the conclusion that sees no contradiction. What is long is what simply seems long to a person and effeminate. Men do not look effeminate with long hair. Nothing to do with cut or not. Just not long. Even French nobles wore wigs of long hair purposely to look effeminate because masculinity was considered a poor man's lot in life for having to work with his hands. People instinctively know by nature that long means effeminate.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The verb is HAVE and it does not point to the action of growing but possessing. And that means the idea of not cutting is still not there. Again, the same phrase or word is used in verse 15. So whatever you say about verse 16 definition has to be applied to be verse 15 and the men.

It still means men cannot do what women can do. And if you restrict it to CUTTING then a man with hair down his back that trims it is okay. And we both disagree that is okay. So, it cannot be uncut.

"have" hair that has been let to grow. If long hair simply means "long hair" you still have the same problem. Would shoulder length hair on a man be considered long?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

"have" hair that has been let to grow. If long hair simply means "long hair" you still have the same problem. Would shoulder length hair on a man be considered long?

The problem is solved if the uncut thought is removed. It means men should not have shoulder length hair. That is considered long.

Letting hair grow long is letting it get to a long length, and that can include trimming if the trimming allows the hair to get longer over period of time. Ask any professional who understands hair. You can actually let it grow long by implementing trimming to ensure it doesn't break off and stay short. I know women who's hair breaks off and splits faster than it grows. So uncut hair is robbing them of having long hair.

[good samaritan]

You say that long hair is feminine, but yet it is o.k. for the feminine to shorten it? In other words men should not wear there hair to a length they consider to be long and women should not cut their hair to length they consider to be short? I agree with the fact that my interpretation is not subject to question, but it still feels right as well as lines up.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

You say that long hair is feminine, but yet it is o.k. for the feminine to shorten it?

Personally, no I do not think it is ok. But I won't judge it as a sin. To me, ANY WOMAN looks better with long hair. A sinner asked my why the bible says that, so I told him to close his eyes and picture the most feminine beautiful woman he could and tell me if she had long hair. He smiled and agreed.

In other words men should not wear there hair to a length they consider to be long and women should not cut their hair to length they consider to be short? I agree with the fact that my interpretation is not subject to question, but it still feels right as well as lines up.

Uncut simply does not work,. though. Like I said it conflicts with the consistency of the term in both verses. No matter how you look at it, men can have trimmed hair down their backs if long means uncut.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The problem is solved if the uncut thought is removed. It means men should not have shoulder length hair. That is considered long.

Letting hair grow long is letting it get to a long length, and that can include trimming if the trimming allows the hair to get longer over period of time. Ask any professional who understands hair. You can actually let it grow long by implementing trimming to ensure it doesn't break off and stay short. I know women who's hair breaks off and splits faster than it grows. So uncut hair is robbing them of having long hair.

So if shoulder length hair cannot be obtained by some woman, is she covered by it to pray or prophesy without dishonoring her head?

Here is the thing, If a lady feels comfortable trimming her hair I am not going to judge her, but as for my own family I couldn't in good conscious allow them to do that without my objection and the same from my son and I with not cutting our hair. I agree with the point you make, but I personally feel that this is more of a spiritual issue than what we know. Feminism and masculinity lines are very muddled in western culture.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

So if shoulder length hair cannot be obtained by some woman, is she covered by it to pray or prophesy without dishonoring her head?

The issue of hair is only an appearance issue. GLORY is an appearance thing. Beauty. But the overall issue is a veil. Paul indicates nature's veil is hair and it supports what he's trying to say about a veil on a woman. He argues from varying standpoints, and natural hair is a support for the actual veil he is discussing.

Here is the thing, If a lady feels comfortable trimming her hair I am not going to judge her, but as for my own family I couldn't in good conscious allow them to do that without my objection and the same from my son and I with not cutting our hair. I agree with the point you make, but I personally feel that this is more of a spiritual issue than what we know. Feminism and masculinity lines are very muddled in western culture.

It is more spiritual and cannot be measured by rules like cutting or not. It's just what looks long or not. What people generally feel is long or not. Leave it there. Uncut makes people who can think realize there's something wrong. She can have long hair by not cutting it, sure. But that's not the only way to "have long hair."

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Personally, no I do not think it is ok. But I won't judge it as a sin. To me, ANY WOMAN looks better with long hair. A sinner asked my why the bible says that, so I told him to close his eyes and picture the most feminine beautiful woman he could and tell me if she had long hair. He smiled and agreed.



Uncut simply does not work,. though. Like I said it conflicts with the consistency of the term in both verses. No matter how you look at it, men can have trimmed hair down their backs if long means uncut.

As truth seeker stated earlier shorn and shaven "to him" meant cut down to the head. What if that is correct. You could then keep the consistency with vere 15. Shorn and shaven could then be applied not for the woman but to the man.

[good samaritan]

1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered(have uncut hair), dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered (have cut hair) dishonoureth her head:for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered (have uncut hair), let her also be shorn:but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven(the type of mans hair cut), let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover(have uncut hair) his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God:but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9-- Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13 Judge in yourselves:is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered (have cut hair)? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair (uncut hair, allowed to grow), it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair (uncut hair, allowed to grow), it is a glory to her:for her hair is given her for a covering. 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Does verse 15 seem consistent when viewed with the context of the rest of the scriptures (especially vs. 6 which was actually another's p.o.v. originally in this thread.

The quotes is how I understand this verse and it makes sense. Also verse 16 could be used to debate the whole first 15 verses if someone wanted to. I believe Paul meant that the church holds no other custom of head covering, but this one given in the previous 15 verses.

P.S. I don't usually swap words in scripture in such a layout, but this is how I interpret it. Also I don't believe the sin is in the legalistics of all these things, but it is a matter of the heart between God and the recipient. (cut or uncut, male or female).