What is your opinion and experience with women with short hair?

[prudent_commenter]

I think you must be lost in translation because I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

The husband is the head of the wife. The head of man is Christ.

 

[timewerx]

We're trying to get black women to accept allowing their hair to be short.

Black women in America spend trillions of dollars in one way or another chasing long hair. Some black women are spending as much as a Mercedes payment each month to have "long hair."

The desire for "long hair" is a curse for us.

At some point, I told about local women in Africa. They can't seem to grow long hair. It's probably genetic.

The OP's argument definitely fails in some circumstances.

Some Christians make the mistake that Paul's teachings are universally absolute in every situation when Paul himself said it in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. a very obvious clue his teachings is context-heavy in terms of regional culture and most likely isn't for everyone and only for the audiences he spoke to directly or sent letters to.

 

[timewerx]

The husband is the head of the wife. The head of man is Christ.

Like I said, Paul's teachings needs to be studied under the cultural context of that period.

Because Jesus taught things differently:

John 15:15
I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.

 

[prudent_commenter]

Like I said, Paul's teachings needs to be studied under the cultural context of that period.

Because Jesus taught things differently:

John 15:15
I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.

What about Genesis?

 

[A New Dawn]

It's a sin, but you go ahead.

Now, in the future, all you four women are to stay away from any of my posts, and replies. I will not reply to you, i will not notice your writings, and I will not engage with you. Creating rabbit-holes in topics is useless, and causes confusion, and it tries to get the worst out of an individual. I don't deal in confusion, and I do not trash threads, here or everywhere else.

Yeah, you can ignore us but you can’t demand that we not respond.

 

[timewerx]

What about Genesis?

The subservient role of women to her husband is the result of Eve's sin.

It's a punishment. A consequence of Eve's sin together with death.

and Jesus took those away!

Recognize a Godly woman yet?

 

[prudent_commenter]

The subservient role of women to her husband is the result of Eve's sin.

It's a punishment. A consequence of Eve's sin together with death.

and Jesus took those away!

Quote me the scripture where that is taken away.

In Genesis, those are God's words. You can't refutem, good.

Paul also said that a woman's salvation shall be by childbirth. God Himself said the woman shall bear children in pain. He didn't say it is optional, If Paul's words are cultural, and made upon the times (it's blasphemy, but will that slide), why would the two coincide?

The head coverings also matches with God's words, because the head of the woman is man. Henceforth, her head shall be covered.

Recognize a Godly woman yet?

I do, and you are not it. I follow real faith, not lukewarm.And a woman cannot teach because of her personal involvement in the matter (see that other woman).

 

[Kathleen30]

The research I think is well supported but not conclusive as theres many unknown factors at present. But basically there are some people who have a in develop for various reasons are aligned with the opposite sexed brains in those particular areas.

But as we known this is not always the case and there may also be couples both with short hair or long hair though less often. So its complex but there is some association.

I think this maybe going back some time as well. I remember a couple of true stories about women who became men and fooled most for some time as it was taboo.

But I also think this may have increased. BUt I am not sure if this is because it is a cultural phenomina, biological and genetic or a combination of both. I suspect it is the last. Culture has defnitely developed to be more gender fluid in general or at least accepting it for the most part.

But from what I have read on the toxins and pathogens and even hormones being punmped into the system over decades it would not surprise that this has caused some damage with our biological systems.

Steve could be a number of those things you mentioned. But one thing is certain many know from a very young age be it girl on girl man on man or a mixture of both what their sexual preference be

 

[timewerx]

Paul also said that a woman's salvation shall be by childbirth. God Himself said the woman shall bear children in pain. He didn't say it is optional, If Paul's words are cultural, and made upon the times (it's blasphemy, but will that slide), why would the two coincide?

Are you saying that all women who never birthed a child they died unsaved? Condemned?

What about unfertile women?

I don't think Jesus would impose such unfair rules on people.

 

[stevevw]

The cultural context of that preaching is that it doesn't apply to us anymore. This is why Christian women don't cover their heads anymore.

Nowhere else in the Bible it's mentioned to be law or command. Paul did sort of commanding his audience because back then in Corinth, wearing head covering is what a respectable woman do and Corinth is a very lawless place.

As everything else with Paul's teachings many of them aren't mentioned anywhere else in the Bible - these are very specific instructions for the time period and culture/region.

I think the teaching though is based on a fundemental truth of the overall teaching about the order and relationships within the body of Christ which is the church. The head coverings was I think a particular application of that order and relationship between men and women in the church.

I think we can see this fundemental truth in order going back to Gensesis for which Paul refers to. Its also referred to in other verses such as Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

1 Timothy 2:13
For Adam was formed first, then Eve;

 

[A New Dawn]

I think the teaching though is based on a fundemental truth of the overall teaching about the order and relationships within the body of Christ which is the church. The head coverings was I think a particular application of that order and relationship between men and women in the church.

I think we can see this fundemental truth in order going back to Gensesis for which Paul refers to. Its also referred to in other verses such as Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

1 Timothy 2:13
For Adam was formed first, then Eve;

I believe much of what Paul spoke of had to do with the various cultures and the problems the saints were having with the pagan religions in their general areas. I don’t believe he was making a general rule to be adhered to by the whole of Christianity, but more to separate themselves from the pagans.

 

[Kathleen30]

He cut my desire for carnal pleasures. Made it such that they are optional.

I'm not sure if this is a no or a wait from Him. With no sexual desire, the thinking is unaltered. So, when looking for a potential partner, without this, you tend to see things that you never see while there is a strong desire. It clouds your judgement.
There is, and will never be a risk of fornicating. Neither the loss of sanity due to aloneness. It's might seem odd, but I'm never really alone. I always feel in the company of someone.

It's not really a choice. Even if I wanted to do, there's no one that abides by the scripture. A good, god-fearing woman is very hard to find. Per my observation, if you meet just one good woman in your life, even that is considered a miracle from God. (Even men for that matter.) God will have to provide for this, because what I saw so far, it's a hard pass.

Besides, in the near future, I may become a monk, due to my life, and habits. So, never having relationships will certainly help on this part. But again, I don't know what God wants to do. So far, he kept me away from fornication and promiscuity.

Prudent one you say the God cut your desires for carnal pleasures off. And made optional for you. Ok. But is sexual desire a carnal distraction or just normal affection ? You’re not sure if this is for you as yet as you wait upon the will of the God. I’m sure if your will is open to Gods will he will reveal to you soon enough.

You say with sexual desire out of the way your thinking and evaluation for a future partner is much more clearer for searching out. But how would premarital sex from someone who is now a child of God exclude them from now being a Godly person with the potential of being a future Godly wife ? It is the God who forgives justifies and purifies is it not ?

I guess we all have standards in how we evaluate as with you and as with us all. But sometimes our standards not be Gods standards and we must always evaluate that. To me personally the good wife is always there for you. It not be determined on her past nor of her husbands past. Even ladies of the night such as Rehab the prostitute married into the Israel of God as many within her profession have done so through the generations of our histories. Anyway food for thought when thinking upon the good future wife.

As to thinking upon becoming a monk. Maybe. Who know. Yu may even find your future partner. Perhaps a Nun down there at the local nunnery Only kidding : ) Prudent One I do wish you well in whatever you choose for the future . God bless. Yours Kathleen

 

[stevevw]

I believe much of what Paul spoke of had to do with the various cultures and the problems the saints were having with the pagan religions in their general areas. I don’t believe he was making a general rule to be adhered to by the whole of Christianity, but more to separate themselves from the pagans.

But were these rules based on anything fundemental. If Paul is making rules for a particular situation then those rules have to be based on something fundemental that does change. Otherwise the adjustments don't make sense without some basis that they are being adjusted to accommodate those rules.

They would just be some arbitrary rules Paul made up without any justification for them.

For example if Paul is making rules about head covers this would seem arbitrary if there was not a basis for why he should mention this. Like one day he decided that head dress and length was an issue for no good reason apart from differentiating from the pagans for fashion. There must have been a reason why he chose head covers and hair and the basis for those rules.

Maybe the pagans were defying Christs order for the church by blurring the lines between the relationships within the Body of Christ with their practices that related to head covering and hair as the outward dress that represented this order. So Paul in making rules about head coverings was actually addressing a deeper truth about the order within Christs church which is HIs Body.

 

[A New Dawn]

But were these rules based on anything fundemental. If Paul is making rules for a particular situation then those rules have to be based on something fundemental that does change. Otherwise the adjustments don't make sense without some basis that they are being adjusted to accommodate those rules.

They would just be some arbitrary rules Paul made up without any justification for them.

For example if Paul is making rules about head covers this would seem arbitrary if there was not a basis for why he should mention this. Like one day he decided that head dress and length was an issue for no good reason apart from differentiating from the pagans for fashion. There must have been a reason why he chose head covers and hair and the basis for those rules.

Maybe the pagans were defying Christs order for the church by blurring the lines between the relationships within the Body of Christ with their practices that related to head covering and hair as the outward dress that represented this order. So Paul in making rules about head coverings was actually addressing a deeper truth about the order within Christs church which is HIs Body.

The problem I see with this being more than an issue that spoke to local clashes with pagans, or temple prostitution, etc., is that they were returning to a rules-based salvation, which I can’t see Paul as suggesting for one minute. From reading some of the commentaries, some of the specific cultural ‘suggestions’ he was making was due to local conflicts. The one in Corinthians about women keeping quiet in church was more about their lack of scholarly education than about gender, for instance.

 

[stevevw]

Steve could be a number of those things you mentioned. But one thing is certain many know from a very young age be it girl on girl man on man or a mixture of both what their sexual preference be

Yes I think so. Their identity and inclination is not made up out of a purely socially constructed basis. Its embodied as a part of them as much as it would be for a heterosexual due to the hormonal imbalances which are more like the opposite sex.

On the other hand I think there is a degree of overlap into culture as I think some people can be inclined as sexual desire is a powerful thing and when mixed with modern ideas about androgeny it may blur the lines between the sexes where people expeiment.

Its a complex issue and I think we need to be open to all factors to fully understand.

 

[stevevw]

The problem I see with this being more than an issue that spoke to local clashes with pagans, or temple prostitution, etc., is that they were returning to a rules-based salvation, which I can’t see Paul as suggesting for one minute. From reading some of the commentaries, some of the specific cultural ‘suggestions’ he was making was due to local conflicts. The one in Corinthians about women keeping quiet in church was more about their lack of scholarly education than about gender, for instance.

I wonder though because in Paul making such a command in that particular situation he refers to something more fundemental about Gods order for all. He also mentions that this was a law for all the churches when he qualifies this with "as in all the churches of the saints".

When we conside all the other verses which mention Headship and examples like Peter in using Sarah as an example for wives to follow and the qualification that an overseer is to be the husband of one wife and head of the family and household and that they be able to teach the doctrines and correct and reprove others with authority.

I think this all points to the same fundemental order within the body of Christ which is His church. It wasn't just a local teaching but a fundemental truth in the order of Christs church that reflected the Godhead. But was more empahsised or pointed out by Paul in the specific situation. He was applying this fundemental order to the particular situation that was undermining this.

I am also interested that we see women still wearing head coveings as late as the 80s. Still some today. It seems there was still a reveence for this practice beyond culture and in fact it was modern culture that rationalised this away.

If Pauls teachings were only for that specific situation then the church has been sticking to that for almost 2000 years until around the 20th century. Does that make this tradition just a cultural practice. Or because it lasted for so long that it represented something more fundemental and now its being rationalised as out of date. .

 

[timewerx]

I think the teaching though is based on a fundemental truth of the overall teaching about the order and relationships within the body of Christ which is the church. The head coverings was I think a particular application of that order and relationship between men and women in the church.

I think we can see this fundemental truth in order going back to Gensesis for which Paul refers to. Its also referred to in other verses such as Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

1 Timothy 2:13
For Adam was formed first, then Eve;

If you review Genesis, a wife's lowly position in a marriage was due to Eve's sin.

A punishment that was passed down to all wives.

Alongside that punishment was death - Adam and Eve no longer had eternal life.

But Jesus came and we now have a chance at forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

The punishment for Adam and Eve's sin revoked.

If women needed a husband in order to keep the straight path, would that mean women who never got married would die condemned?

 

[timewerx]

If Pauls teachings were only for that specific situation then the church has been sticking to that for almost 2000 years until around the 20th century. Does that make this tradition just a cultural practice. Or because it lasted for so long that it represented something more fundemental and now its being rationalised as out of date.

Paul's teachings often leaned towards avoiding causing offense to unbelievers or "weak Christians" to avoid ruining our testimony.

But times have been changing rapidly in the last few decades. Women are finally seeing liberties they didn't have before. People no longer offended so easily and this is reflected in the crime rates statistics especially murder / homicide.

If women in the past couple of decades have been using head coverings up to that point, they probably did so for good reasons and even found them ideal in the given circumstances.

Today, it's no longer required or ideal unless to keep warm in colder seasons. Modern people don't get offended easily anymore.

And if murder rates are dropping, this could be a good sign the Lord is about to return. The world is starting to heal as our evil leaders attempt to ruin things by waging wars.

If the situation is different and everyone dyed their hair pink and everyone who didn't is regarded as offensive, Paul would would have commanded his audience to dye their hair pink. That's how it goes for Paul to minimize or even avoid causing offence to unbelievers. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do..." Men in Rome cut their hair short and women kept theirs long.

 

[stevevw]

Paul's teachings often leaned towards avoiding causing offense to unbelievers or "weak Christians" to avoid ruining our testimony.

But times have been changing rapidly in the last few decades. Women are finally seeing liberties they didn't have before. People no longer offended so easily and this is reflected in the crime rates statistics especially murder / homicide.

If women in the past couple of decades have been using head coverings up to that point, they probably did so for good reasons and even found them ideal in the given circumstances.

Today, it's no longer required or ideal unless to keep warm in colder seasons. Modern people don't get offended easily anymore.

And if murder rates are dropping, this could be a good sign the Lord is about to return. The world is starting to heal as our evil leaders attempt to ruin things by waging wars.

If the situation is different and everyone dyed their hair pink and everyone who didn't is regarded as offensive, Paul would would have commanded his audience to dye their hair pink. That's how it goes for Paul to minimize or even avoid causing offence to unbelievers. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do..." Men in Rome cut their hair short and women kept theirs long.

I am not sure this logic works or can be applied today. It seems Paul and many others were persecuted even to the point of execution for standing with Christ. I don't think they cared for the pagan cultural norms and in fact went out of their way to differentiate from them.

I don't think the basis for the rules and order that head coverings was an arbitrary social and cultural practice like coloring the hair pink. As though people in the church use to color their hair pink as a cultural fashion and now it doesn't matter. I think if the church taught that coloring the hair pink in Pauls time then that pink represented something fundemental about the order of the church.

Perhaps a practical example may help. Unlike hair color being just a changable cultural expression such as fashion lets use marriage. In Pauls time the teaching and order within the church was marriage between man and women with the husband as head of the family and household.

It was taught that the wife is subject and obedient to the husband like the church is subject and obedient to Christ. Or as Christ made Himself subject and obedient to God. This is the mystery Paul speaks about within the Godhead.

There is a certain order and relationship reflected in marriage. So unlike just being a cutural expression of fashion its a fundemental order that cannot be arbitry like fashion changes.

We can't just say because the culture has changed to accommodate various forms of marriage as an expression of cultural norms just fashion. Its more than fashion and is based on an unchanging fundemental order within the Body of Christ and reflected in marriage and the church.

If head covers was a symbolic reference to that same relational order as in marriage then its more than just fashion that changes. It represents a more fundemental order within the relationships of Christs Body the church and family.

Treating it as like fashionable changes I think may also overlook any fundemental reason why such a rule and order was introduced in the first place.

In that sense we can see applications of this fundemental order applied to different cultures. In Pauls time head dress was a representation of the Headship within the church.

Which perhaps in the wider pagan beliefs was also a representation that Paul was destinguishing from the pagans. But that Headship is still a fundemental representation of the order that applies but in new ways according to the changing culture.

Like marriage it is a representation of an unchanging order in the church.

 

[timewerx]

I am not sure this logic works or can be applied today. It seems Paul and many others were persecuted even to the point of execution for standing with Christ. I don't think they cared for the pagan cultural norms and in fact went out of their way to differentiate from them.

I don't think the basis for the rules and order that head coverings was an arbitrary social and cultural practice like coloring the hair pink. As though people in the church use to color their hair pink as a cultural fashion and now it doesn't matter. I think if the church taught that coloring the hair pink in Pauls time then that pink represented something fundemental about the order of the church.

Perhaps a practical example may help. Unlike hair color being just a changable cultural expression such as fashion lets use marriage. In Pauls time the teaching and order within the church was marriage between man and women with the husband as head of the family and household.

It was taught that the wife is subject and obedient to the husband like the church is subject and obedient to Christ. Or as Christ made Himself subject and obedient to God. This is the mystery Paul speaks about withing the Godhead.

There is a certain order and relationship reflected in marriage. So unlike just being a cutural expression of fashion its a fundemental order that cannot be arbitry like fashion changes.

We can't just say because the culture has changed to accommodate various forms of marriage as a changing expression of cultural norms. Its more than fashion and is based on an unchanging fundemental order within the Body of Christ and reflected in marriage and the church.

If head covers was a symbolic reference to that same relational order as in marriage then its more than just fashion that changes. It represents a more fundemental order within the relationships of Christs Body the church and family.

Treating it as like fashion and therefore changable I think may also overlook any fundemental reason why such a rule and order was introduced in the first place besides cultural fashion that changes.

In that sense we can see applications of this fundemental order applied to different cultures. In Pauls time head dress was a representation of the Headship within the church. Which perhaps in the wider pagan beliefs was also a representation that Paul was destinguishing from the pagans. But that Headship is still a fundemental order that applies in new ways according to the changing culture.

Like marriage it is a representation of an unchanging order in the church.

The order is unchanging, true.

But you're missing the part where the Jews had many things wrong about the scriptures (with their flawed understanding of scriptures) before Jesus came.

They thought you had to stick with the Sabbath, stoning some sinners to death, and what else - with absoluteness. There's no room for fairness and mercy. The Jews executed the law without love, without regard for the extenuating circumstances. They used the wrong measures to judge others resulting in unjust outcomes.

The order has always been before Adam and Eve sinned - eternal life, love, mercy, forgiveness, and innocence.

Before they sinned, Eve is not subject to Adam. A "helper" does not mean a lower ranking status. The Holy Spirit is also a "helper" to us. Although Jesus did not speak of it, he broke taboos in his conduct with other women. You can see where Jesus stand on this and it's he's definitely not standing with the Jews on the matter.

However, the culture of the period was quite hostile to women's liberties both from the orthodox Jews and the Romans. This is most likely the reason Paul said/wrote the things he did - to avoid excessive persecution so that early Christianity might survive but he had to say it in a way that also preserves order in order to avoid confusion among his audiences.

Unfortunately, the teaching has brought so much confusion today because we're so distant from their culture. It really doesn't apply to us anymore.