1 Corinthians 11:15

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Paul wrote it was from nature

Yes, but that is an additional witness. He appealed to nature to substantiate his claim since they evidently never thought of nature as well.

[Jermyn Davidson]

What you are not taking into consideration is the REALITY that millions of women don't have long hair, didn't have long hair when those words were penned, and will never have long hair.

If you want to believe God creates every human being, constantly, even now, then believe and accept that God creates billions of women with short hair.

Am I the only person who tries to look for interpretations of scripture that has at least a modicum of consistency with REAL LIFE?

There are cultural norms that form the frame of reference for the writers of all literature, to include the Bible.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Paul wasted 16 verses for nothing. I wonder how many other 16 verses have no relevance today?

If it's just a cultural thing, then why would God inspire it to be part of the Bible?

What exactly are we to learn from the passage?

That granny can go ahead and have her short blue hair?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If it's just a cultural thing, then why would God inspire it to be part of the Bible?

What exactly are we to learn from the passage?

That granny can go ahead and have her short blue hair?

The lesson is submission and order of authority.

[Jermyn Davidson]

The missionary call of Christ to the nations is NOT a call to westernize all nations-- but that is what many Christians have done in the past.

They present a gospel of Christ that prejudges the "savages" as savages and they forced a version of the gospel that intertwines western cultural norms with Christianity.

This is very similar to the way that some Christians intertwine "standards" into their presentation of the gospel and into their presentation as to what true Christianity looks like.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

What you are not taking into consideration is the REALITY that millions of women don't have long hair, didn't have long hair when those words were penned, and will never have long hair.

Like I said:

As for cultures where women's hair simply does not grow long, that doesn't change the fact that 1)if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her, and 2)that it would be shameful for a woman to have her head shaved or her hair shorn off, and finally 3)a woman who prays or prophesies uncovered dishonours her head.

If you want to believe God creates every human being, constantly, even now, then believe and accept that God creates billions of women with short hair.

Yep, he sure does.

Am I the only person who tries to look for interpretations of scripture that has at least a modicum of consistency with REAL LIFE?

Define 'real life'. I, personally, try to look for what the Scripture is saying, then try to believe and obey it. How about you?

There are cultural norms that form the frame of reference for the writers of all literature, to include the Bible.

Indeed. But, the Bible is not a collection of literature books written by middle eastern dudes. It is the WORD OF GOD, was in the beginning with God, and WAS GOD, and then became FLESH and dwelt among us.

Paul said every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonours her head. That's an apostolic teaching, from an apostle. We reject it to our own peril.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The lesson is submission and order of authority.

Submission to what? Whose authority?

If the apostle says a woman ought to pray covered, then should she? Should we submit to the apostle's Divinely inspired teaching?

If the apostle was inspired by the Holy Ghost to say that nature teaches that if a woman has long hair it is a glory to her, then is it? Who's the authority?

Paul? God? Fudge? The local AoG? The pope?

Who's the authority?

How does one obey the form of sound words delivered to us by the apostle Paul?

[Jermyn Davidson]

And another thing...
Jesus Christ is not white. He never was white. It was impossible for Him to look like the way he was represented to look from a western point of view.

Sure, the original artists never meant any harm in their works of art, but the people that came after the original artists took the liberties of the artists and created something else.

[Steve Epley]

Maybe the 13th chapter is cultural? I hope so it is very hard to practice. Then observing the Lord's supper probably cultural? there is some reform folks that teach baptism was cultural?
I guess I need to ask you guys what part of Paul's writings apply to us?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

The missionary call of Christ to the nations is NOT a call to westernize all nations-- but that is what many Christians have done in the past.

They present a gospel of Christ that prejudges the "savages" as savages and they forced a version of the gospel that intertwines western cultural norms with Christianity.

This is very similar to the way that some Christians intertwine "standards" into their presentation of the gospel and into their presentation as to what true Christianity looks like.

It is indeed sad when I see for example house churches in India where everyone looks like they belong in Houston, singing Hillsong and Vineyard songs instead of their own indigenous music, worshipping God according to the apostles' doctrines but within their own culture.

Westernizing foreigners and Christianizing them are two very different things.