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?

[JP Cusick]

QUESTION: Does this mean that men with long hair can be identified as sinners, but women with long hair cannot?

Never said that it meant sinner - sinner is a different concept.

It is an natural sign of continuing in thy guilt, see Psalm 68:21

That plus 1 Corinthians 11:14-15, and it started back after Adam and Eve first sinned, Genesis 3:21

The hair does not show sin - it is a sign of continual guilt - and lots of hair (on a man) means more guilt while less means less guilt.

Didn't Jesus have long hair?

We really do not know the truth if Jesus had long hair or not.

Since Jesus was sinless and guiltless then we could expect that Jesus had short hair or even bald, but it could be that Jesus is said to have carried the guilt, He was the innocent dying for the guilty, and so in that view Jesus might have had lots of hair.

I find it difficult to take such arguments seriously.

It is an odd thing but with research it does come out true.

As like male prisoners in jail will often cut off all of their hair to a crew cut, and then clean shave, and it is because their continuing guilt was stopped by getting incarcerated.

The females in jail will often let their hair grow out, and they will say it is because they can not get it cut just right in jail, and if they do cut it as soon as they get released then they surely intend to go right back to their old crimes.

It is said to be an animal things as being natural or being above the carnal nature.

[polonius]

We really do not know the truth if Jesus had long hair or not.

Since Jesus was sinless and guiltless then we could expect that Jesus had short hair or even bald, but it could be that Jesus is said to have carried the guilt, He was the innocent dying for the guilty, and so in that view Jesus might have had lots of hair.

polonius.advice wrote:

I find it difficult to take such arguments seriously.

It is an odd thing but with research it does come out true.

RESPONSE: Please cite specifically the research documents you are referring to.

[JP Cusick]

Please cite specifically the research documents you are referring to.

I am referring to my own research, and I value my own research, because my own research is the very best kind.

Why would you not do your own research?

We can not do too much research about the Moon because it is too far away and the Moon is hard to get there - but human hair is all around and we see hair (and the lack of it) on every person in our sphere and on TV and just everywhere.

So why do you seek some other source of research? - when you can do the research your self?

This troubles me when people want some higher human authority to tell them what they are to believe and tell them what is true - as if we can not do basic simple research for our self.

The Bible and God are available for common lowlife people, just as much as they are for the high and mighty.

[polonius]

Please cite specifically the research documents you are referring to.

I am referring to my own research, and I value my own research, because my own research is the very best kind.

Why would you not do your own research?

We can not do too much research about the Moon because it is too far away and the Moon is hard to get there - but human hair is all around and we see hair (and the lack of it) on every person in our sphere and on TV and just everywhere.

So why do you seek some other source of research? - when you can do the research your self?

This troubles me when people want some higher human authority to tell them what they are to believe and tell them what is true - as if we can not do basic simple research for our self.

The Bible and God are available for common lowlife people, just as much as they are for the high and mighty.

RESPONSE: I prefer competent information provided by persons actually knowledgeable in the field of inquiry. Not "my own research"not based on any reliable references.

So please be prepared to list your references rather than only your opinions such as things you'd like to believe. Present your"own basic research" and the sources you used, if you want your conclusions taken seriously.

[paarsurrey1]

It is not a religious issue. Jesus is depicted in the pictures* having long hairs. Right, please?

Regards

________
*https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=OIP._9HpMo ... w=126&h=97

[brianbbs67]

It is not a religious issue. Jesus is depicted in the pictures* having long hairs. Right, please?

Regards

________
*https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=OIP._9HpMo ... w=126&h=97

Yes much later, like a 1000 years, so nobody knows and shouldn't be a religious point of contention as it does not matter. Some things matter, this one doesn't.

[JP Cusick]

RESPONSE: I prefer competent information provided by persons actually knowledgeable in the field of inquiry. Not "my own research"not based on any reliable references.

So please be prepared to list your references rather than only your opinions such as things you'd like to believe. Present your"own basic research" and the sources you used, if you want your conclusions taken seriously.

I see you failed to answer my question to you, and it is sad that you do not value your own competency.

Unfortunately very many if not most people have low and unhealthy self-esteem so that other people take control over them and the uppity class tells them what they can believe and what they can view as true or false and that is a sad state of affairs for humanity.

I see my own research as the most competent, because I have learned to trust my own judgment, and so my own research is a reliable reference, and my opinions are based on my own studies and my experiments, and I see mine as the most credible of them all.

How are you and I to discuss this or any topic if you fail to give your own opinions and not your own beliefs? what happened to the discussion being one person talking to other people about our own ideologies?

If you are just preaching what the Catholic Church preaches or some other institution then you yourself are not even participating in the discussion.

If the only truth that you will consider is what comes from some uppity institution then again you yourself are not even participating in the discussion.

I want to learn what other people believe - not what you were told to believe.

[polonius]

JP Cusick posted:

I see my own research as the most competent, because I have learned to trust my own judgment, and so my own research is a reliable reference, and my opinions are based on my own studies and my experiments, and I see mine as the most credible of them all.

RESPONSE: “the most competent�??? Definition of “competent�

“Having suitable or sufficient skill, knowledge, experience, etc., for some purpose; properly qualified�

If your judgments do not satisfy these criteria, isn’t it a bit inaccurate to claim competence?

my opinions are based on my own studies. I see mine as the most credible of them all
…

However others may not consider your "opinions" as credible after evaluating the thoroughness of your work-product. I rely instead on collected data from reliable sources.

How are you and I to discuss this or any topic if you fail to give your own opinions and not your own beliefs? what happened to the discussion being one person talking to other people about our own ideologies?

RESPONSE: Probably we can’t since I rely on established facts not my own belief system as the correct criteria to use.

[bluethread]

There are a few issues that are being bandied about in a shotgun fashion. If I may, let me connect them.

First, as one poster has pointed out the term does not specifically refer to biological nature. It is a more general reference to the nature of things. If it did refer exclusively to biological nature, it should be noted that the natural lack of hair on the male head is a sign of potency. That does not apply to women and does not mean that long hair is a sign of impotency. So, there is a slight biological connection. Also, baldness is a dominant trait in men and a regressive trait in women. For that reason, by nature, it is more common for men to have short hair and women to have long hair. However, as I stated, that is only one thing that would contribute to short hair on men being the nature of things.

Second, in context, Paul is talking about halacha(lifestyle). This is therefore speaking of cultural nature. He states that a woman's hair is given to her "for a covering". A covering for what purpose? This is not a reference to direct biological protection, but to the protected status that is afforded women in society. Historically, this status has been nearly universal in human societies. That is why Paul states that a women who does not wish to cover her head when praying or speaking in public should have her head shaved, so it could be clear that she does not wish to be afforded protected status. Therefore, culturally, if a man has long hair, he is indicating that he is seeking to be afforded a protected status in society. For men, in most societies, such a request is generally seen as dishonorable.

Third, the Nazarite vow is designed to afford one who is not a Cohen the protected status afforded the Cohen HaGadol(High Priest). The Cohen HaGadol is not to cut his hair as long as he serves in that office. One might then ask why would such an honored position carry a sign that is seen as dishonorable? The reason is that it is intended to instill humility. By letting one's hair grow long, a man is showing that he is in submission to Adonai. So, why isn't every man commanded to let his hair grow long? Well, if that were the case, there would be many men who could not comply for biological reasons and the practice would lose it's significance. Therefore, the Nazarite vow is provided as a special case for those men who wish to humble themselves before Adonai and subject themselves to additional scrutiny by the rest of society. This might very well be behind the rabbinic practice of wearing a kippah, as a covering, to show one's humility before Adonai.

So, though things may appear rather convoluted and contradictory at first blush. When one puts them in proper grammatical, historical and cultural context, they make much more sense.

[JP Cusick]

So women can grow long hair and men can't, that is so ridiculous.

It is not that they can or can not - it was not a commandment.

For a man to have long hair (including facial hair) is a sign of guilt, and it means continuing in the guilt (hiding some thing), because if the man repents then the guilt gets relief, and it comes from our animalistic heritage, because humans are just hairy animals, and religion along with morality and repentance makes us superior to our old carnal self.

For women their long hair is a sign of glory and honor - so to cut off the hair is done after they reject their own glory and honor.

The hair does not make anyone as good or bad, does not make anyone as right or wrong, it is just a physical sign and a mark for all to see.

I did not make it this way, so there is no need to get upset with me, as I am just the reporter of the News.

My view is that the Apostle Paul said that "nature" made us this way because Paul was referring to our animal nature, and that is simply accurate.

Just to followup:

Concerning the long hair on men then the solution is NOT for the men to shave and get a hair cut - no.

The counter measure is to repent of their sins and of their wrong doing and then the man will no longer need nor want to hide behind the hair when the guilt gets gone.

Do not see the hair as the problem, and do not just seek to get rid of the hair - the point is to get rid of the guilt and stop living in sin.

So too with women - if they repent and stop sinning then their hair responds naturally.