Im new here. I need some help regarding 1 Corinth 11:14
- Thread starter Crystallium
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
World standards of pleasant looks are not "of the world" in the slightest sense.
If a guy looks good with longer than standard hair and wants to grow it out that way....that's his business. I got nothing to say about it.
Lots of guys have shoulder length or longer hair. I really don't think anything about it.
It's when they are bald on top to front and their hair is waist long....that's unattractive. Don't recommend continuing in their appearance.
Or they do the extreme "comb over"....that's not attractive either.
Bald is not bad like it once used to be considered.. nor is it better.
This hair length stuff is trying to make an issue where none exists.
If a guy looks good with longer than standard hair and wants to grow it out that way....that's his business. I got nothing to say about it.
Lots of guys have shoulder length or longer hair. I really don't think anything about it.
It's when they are bald on top to front and their hair is waist long....that's unattractive. Don't recommend continuing in their appearance.
Or they do the extreme "comb over"....that's not attractive either.
Bald is not bad like it once used to be considered.. nor is it better.
This hair length stuff is trying to make an issue where none exists.
-
1
- Show all
No, confusion is confusion, as long as you're looking at the back of a guy who wears their hair like a girl. From the front you could tell it was a guy, because he had a long beard.
You can call me old fashioned, and that's OK, because I come from an era that our public high school made all girls wear a dress to school, no shorts, tee shirts or blue jeans were allowed.
You can call me old fashioned, and that's OK, because I come from an era that our public high school made all girls wear a dress to school, no shorts, tee shirts or blue jeans were allowed.
Puritans can be such snowflakes over the most un-important stuff, they see their culture how they want to see it and expect people to conform to that image. They ignore the gay pride, the gender changing of minors, the letting out of rapists and all the evil crap our culture is normalizing. But boy if someone at church has long hair or wears a kilt he's out of line.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
When I was a young adult, there were some guys my age in church who wore their hair really long (because heavy metal was still big back then). But no one said anything about it.
But you know what happened? All of them grew out of that phase and they all have short hair now.
So I think if a guy truly belongs to God, God Himself will phase them out of that.
💐
But you know what happened? All of them grew out of that phase and they all have short hair now.
So I think if a guy truly belongs to God, God Himself will phase them out of that.
💐
-
1
- Show all
Agreed… which means that men who happen to have “long” hair should not be judged according to worldly standards of short and long.
The common and immediate judgment is that anyone who doesn’t outwardly conform to “my” understanding of right and wrong is “following the world”. *That* is improper judgement that we are warned against.
Far better to ignore the length of another person’s hair and focus on the condition of their heart.
Here’s another consideration I haven’t seen addressed in this thread:
What about women with “short” hair?
Consistency and integrity demand that we “judge” such women according to the same standard that we judge men.
The common and immediate judgment is that anyone who doesn’t outwardly conform to “my” understanding of right and wrong is “following the world”. *That* is improper judgement that we are warned against.
Far better to ignore the length of another person’s hair and focus on the condition of their heart.
Here’s another consideration I haven’t seen addressed in this thread:
What about women with “short” hair?
Consistency and integrity demand that we “judge” such women according to the same standard that we judge men.
-
1
- Show all
I see that one of the issues involved in this discussion is Biblical Inerrancy, so I would like to begin by sharing some thoughts about that subject:
Those who view the biblical canon as inspired by God disagree about what this means. Some people speak as though God dictated every word of the Bible to the human writers, which causes many atheists to be confused, because they do not realize that the dictation theory has several caveats, such as that it refers to the original manuscripts (which we do not have) correctly interpreted. And the key to correct interpretation is NOT viewing the Bible as a modern science or history textbook, but rather as concerned with communicating God’s will to humanity regarding His requirement for salvation: THAT is what is inerrant!
The salvationist view of inspiration seems more logical than the dictationist view according to the following train of thought: Suppose God Himself wrote the inerrant message to humanity: “Thou shalt not lie, steal, murder or fornicate.” Suppose the first manuscript copier accidentally left out the comma between lie and steal. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? No, but it is still a mistake and no longer perfectly inerrant. Now suppose an evil copier intentionally changed the word fornicate to fumigate. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? Not all of it; only the changed word. How could we know which word or words were correct and not changed? We would need to compare the commandment with other statements purported to be inspired by God in order to see what is the overall or consistent message, so that we can acquire sufficient evidence to have reasonable belief that the word fumigate should be discounted.
Finally, suppose that no one changed God’s original commandment. How could we know absolutely or infallibly that it was inerrant? We could not; we walk by faith. We would still need to compare it with the totality of truth in order to discover whether there were any inconsistencies. Thus, a completely inerrant Bible is not needed, as long as there is sufficient consistency in God’s messages to humanity via the creation (TOJ #4), the scriptures (TOJ #3), the incarnate word (TOJ #186) and logic (TOJ #182) for souls to discern God’s requirement for salvation.
Inspiration is like a river: God determines its banks so that the overall revelation each generation along its banks has includes truth sufficient regarding salvation (kerygma), but God allows the river of revelation to have eddies or discrepancies or minor errors that do not prevent God’s purpose from being accomplished (IS 55:10f, 1PT 1:10-12, HB 11:2-12:2).
(I will share my opinion regarding long hair per 1CR later :^)
Those who view the biblical canon as inspired by God disagree about what this means. Some people speak as though God dictated every word of the Bible to the human writers, which causes many atheists to be confused, because they do not realize that the dictation theory has several caveats, such as that it refers to the original manuscripts (which we do not have) correctly interpreted. And the key to correct interpretation is NOT viewing the Bible as a modern science or history textbook, but rather as concerned with communicating God’s will to humanity regarding His requirement for salvation: THAT is what is inerrant!
The salvationist view of inspiration seems more logical than the dictationist view according to the following train of thought: Suppose God Himself wrote the inerrant message to humanity: “Thou shalt not lie, steal, murder or fornicate.” Suppose the first manuscript copier accidentally left out the comma between lie and steal. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? No, but it is still a mistake and no longer perfectly inerrant. Now suppose an evil copier intentionally changed the word fornicate to fumigate. Would that invalidate God’s commandment? Not all of it; only the changed word. How could we know which word or words were correct and not changed? We would need to compare the commandment with other statements purported to be inspired by God in order to see what is the overall or consistent message, so that we can acquire sufficient evidence to have reasonable belief that the word fumigate should be discounted.
Finally, suppose that no one changed God’s original commandment. How could we know absolutely or infallibly that it was inerrant? We could not; we walk by faith. We would still need to compare it with the totality of truth in order to discover whether there were any inconsistencies. Thus, a completely inerrant Bible is not needed, as long as there is sufficient consistency in God’s messages to humanity via the creation (TOJ #4), the scriptures (TOJ #3), the incarnate word (TOJ #186) and logic (TOJ #182) for souls to discern God’s requirement for salvation.
Inspiration is like a river: God determines its banks so that the overall revelation each generation along its banks has includes truth sufficient regarding salvation (kerygma), but God allows the river of revelation to have eddies or discrepancies or minor errors that do not prevent God’s purpose from being accomplished (IS 55:10f, 1PT 1:10-12, HB 11:2-12:2).
(I will share my opinion regarding long hair per 1CR later :^)