Is Nature against males having long hair?

[McCulloch]

Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

What did Paul mean by this? In what way does nature teach this?

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 6 by onewithhim]

You say that they are faithful. Paul says that they are dishonourable. Who is wrong? Can they be both?

Both are correct, if we understand that Paul not speaking in the absolute. Did you miss my comment in this regard? I'll link you back to it just in case (see below)

Did Paul's word's contradict the Mosaic law about long hair?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 273#815273

Did you miss my comment about why I disagree with your opinion? I'll link back to it just in case.
Re: Is Nature against males having long hair?

Paul does not qualify his statement about male hair length. He does not except those set aside. As if to underscore the universality of what he says, he appeals to nature itself.

If I said, "Does not even nature itself teach you take care of your offspring?" would you have any difficulty understanding what I mean? I think not.

[JehovahsWitness]

If I said, "Does not even nature itself teach you take care of your offspring?" would you have any difficulty understanding what I mean?

That would depend, do you live two thousand years ago and are you speaking ancient Greek to people of that culture in a religious context of a new religion?

A common mistake of those that wish to understand the bible is being incapable of undertanding the impact of culture and the nature of language. This is not a problem if someone takes the time to do a little research or listen to of us those that have.

To illustrate: Someone in Western 21st century culture might say they "slept" with someone on their first date. A dictionary would define "to sleep" as the natural state of rest during which your eyes are closed and you become unconscious" so without a good knowledge of how expressions are used at the time and context it might not be understood that the person is actually speaking of having sex.

In a similar way, the impact across languages and then many centuries and then superimposed into a religious context might be huge. Being at least aware of this will help the novice avoid many common mistakes when it comes to biblical hermeneutics.


Cute lion though...


Have a good one,

JW

What do Greek scholars say regarding the expression "nature teaches" as used by Paul?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 744#866744

[McCulloch]

What do Greek scholars say regarding the expression "nature teaches" as used by Paul?

It is a shame that you didn't cite any Greek scholars whose primary field of study was the Greek language. You only cited religious (Christian) scholars with specialty in Greek.

http://www.hellenicgods.org/nature---physis
A non-Christian source
Lexicon entry for Phýsis: φ�σις

• origin; freq. of persons, birth. 2. growth.
• the natural form or constitution of a person or thing as the result of growth: hence,
  1. nature, constitution.
  2. outward form, appearance.
  3. Medic., constitution, temperament. b. natural place or position of a bone or joint.
  4. of the mind, one's nature, force of natural powers, i.e. give rein to your natural propensities. b. instinct in animals, etc.
  5. freq. in periphrases, καὶ γὰ� ἂν πέτ�ου φ�σιν σ� γ' ὀ�γάνειας, i.e. would'st provoke a stone.
• the regular order of nature.
• in Philosophy:
  1. nature as an originating power , the principle of growth in the universe, Cleanth. Stoic.1.126; as Stoic t.t., the inner fire which causes preservation and growth in plants and animals, defined as πῦ� τεχνικὸν �δῷ βαδίζον εἰς γένεσιν, Stoic.1.44, cf. 35, al., S.E.M.9.81; Nature, personified.
  2. elementary substance.
  3. concrete, the creation, 'Nature'.
  4. Pythag. name for two.
• as a concrete term, creature, freq. in collect. sense, mankind; in contemptuous sense, αἱ τοιαῦται φ. such creatures as these. b. of plants or material substances.
• kind, sort, species; natural group or class of plants.
• sex, θῆλυς φῦσα (prob. for οὖσα) κοá½�κ ἀνδÏ�ὸς φÏ�σιν S.Tr.1062, cf. OC445, Th.2.45, Pl.Lg.770d, 944d: hence, 2. the characteristic of sex, = αἰδοῖον, : esp. of the female organ, of the testes. (L&S p.1964, right column)

[McCulloch]

1 CORINTHIANS 11:14
"Isn't it obvious that it's disgraceful for a man to have long hair?" - New Living Translation

Accepting this singular translation, please explain just how men having long hair is disgraceful. If this is merely a cultural thing, why confuse the readers by not making that clear?

[polonius]

1 Corinthians 11:14-18New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him,

15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

16 But if anyone is disposed to be contentious—we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

[JP Cusick]

Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

What did Paul mean by this? In what way does nature teach this?

I happen to see this message as one of the coolest (no pun intended) messages that the Bible teaches.

Having long hair or facial hair on a man is a sign of guilt, and according to the Bible in several reference points the guilt is some thing that the man does willfully as in deliberate sinning.

For a woman when she cuts her hair short then that is her sign of guilt.

Per 1 Corinthians 11:14-15, and also seen here in Psalm 68:21

Other people do not apply this to animals but I do, as the lion is a vicious creature that lives on violence so the male Lions have the hairy main while the female lions have little or short hair. LINK = showing their guilt.

There are other references as like Jesus declares that every hair is numbered.

The hair was also the point of Adam and Eve after they sinned then they got covered in hair, Genesis 3:21, and some people interpret this to mean that Adam and Eve were not physical until this happened and they were given physical bodies.

There is another debate for Theist scholars whether Jesus had long hair as in wearing the guilt of humanity, or did He have short hair and clean shaven as in having no guilt?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

The best answer I have come across looks at the Greek phrase Paul uses and sought parallels in other literature. The conclusion was that what Paul meant by nature is what we mean by common consent. Plato talks of nature showing us that the hexameter is the best for writing poetry: but in context, he means that all the poets use it.

Thus Paul was appealing to common consent of the Graeco-Roman society to correct certain deviations from it occuring within the Corinthian church.

[Justin108]

But... what about Samson?

Samson was a Nazarite, which is a certain group of faithful men (or, occasionally, women) set aside for a special purpose. "Nazarite" actually means "one singled out; dedicated one; separated one." Regulations governing Nazarites are found in chapter 6 of the book of Numbers. Three particular restrictions for those that vowed to be Nazarites:

1) They were to drink no intoxicating beverage or eat any product of the grapevine.
2) They were not to cut the hair of their heads.
3) They were not to touch a dead body.


.

Paul suggests long hair is a bad thing. Why would Nazarites do a bad thing in order to express their dedication to God? That would be like nuns dressing up like prostitutes to express their dedication to God.

[Replying to post 6 by onewithhim]

You say that they are faithful. Paul says that they are dishonourable. Who is wrong? Can they be both?

Obviously the Nazarites were not of the regular population. It was a specific instruction that they were not to cut their hair. Therefore it must have been common for men to wear their hair short. The Nazarites were a group SET APART.

Set apart by doing something Paul considers to be dishonorable. Again, this is like nuns "setting themselves apart" by dressing like prostitutes as dressing like prostitutes is something one would also consider dishonorable.

[bluethread]

If I said, "Does not even nature itself teach you take care of your offspring?" would you have any difficulty understanding what I mean? I think not.

I would think you mean human nature, because in biological nature a multitude of life forms abandon their offspring, if they do not kill or even eat them. He is not speaking about biology. The context is Halacha, or proper living.

[JP Cusick]

Paul suggests long hair is a bad thing. Why would Nazarites do a bad thing in order to express their dedication to God? That would be like nuns dressing up like prostitutes to express their dedication to God.

Set apart by doing something Paul considers to be dishonorable. Again, this is like nuns "setting themselves apart" by dressing like prostitutes as dressing like prostitutes is something one would also consider dishonorable.

It does not say that it is "bad" and the world is not divided into the poisoned knowledge of good and bad.

The long hair on a man is a sign or guilt (or shame) while short hair on a woman is their sign of guilt. 1 Corinthians 11:14-15

It does not say that the hair is bad or good but just a sign of our sins.

If one stops living in sin then the problem goes away.