Evidence for God from Science

Yes, well noted. However, eating pork and other unclean foods was not actually considered a "law", and therefore was not one of the things changed. Notice again in Acts, when Peter had his vision? Jesus had already died and been resurrected. Yet Peter still knew that it was wrong to eat unclean foods! If it had been "changed", or "done away with", he would not have said he knew it was wrong.

Well put but I don't know why. Does anyone know of any Christains that keep a Kosher household or kitchen so to speak? Myself being a Catholic and coming from an Italian family have never heard of such a thing. I do eat pork which happens to be a favorite and lobster, crab, shrimp, scallops and oysters all of which have been a main stay in my diet for years. I was just wondering what others do.

johnt wrote:Well put but I don't know why. Does anyone know of any Christains that keep a Kosher household or kitchen so to speak? Myself being a Catholic and coming from an Italian family have never heard of such a thing. I do eat pork which happens to be a favorite and lobster, crab, shrimp, scallops and oysters all of which have been a main stay in my diet for years. I was just wondering what others do.

Maybe the Messianic Jews which accept Jesus as their Messiah, but I don't think they do it because they think they have to; only because it is part of their tradition.

I don't think food has to necessarily be kosher in order to be considered "clean". I myself don't eat unclean foods, although for a long time I did. (love pepperoni pizza) But I have found many substitutes that work just as well, taste just as good and are actually better for you health-wise. Turkey bacon, turkey pepperoni, turkey sausage all taste good, with alot less fat and calories. So I don't actually miss the taste, just the bad side effects.

jenwat3 wrote:I don't think food has to necessarily be kosher in order to be considered "clean". I myself don't eat unclean foods, although for a long time I did. (love pepperoni pizza) But I have found many substitutes that work just as well, taste just as good and are actually better for you health-wise. Turkey bacon, turkey pepperoni, turkey sausage all taste good, with alot less fat and calories. So I don't actually miss the taste, just the bad side effects.

Turkey pepperoni is good? I never tried it.

Oh, yeah. Tastes just like the original, just not as greasy.

Getting back to the original question...

Anyone who is really serious about understanding this issue of gender and hair, the long and short of it, can find a most worthy answer right hair/here as long as they are not short of reading time.

FFC, you have homework to do!
Jen, you too. Put that bit of turkey down and get to it.
No talking in class. Teacher says!

Yes, Ma'am, My turkey's gone. Ok, I read it (most of it). Some of the points I agree with, others I don't. I don't agree with there being any mention of a shawl or hat, or other type of actual head covering. What is being said here (to women), is that basically, if they are going to have short hair, they might as well go all the way and shave it off completely. (v.5-6) The man also dishonors his head by having long hair. I think these verses explain themselves in v.14-15. On the other hand, it does make sense that, since Christ is the "head of man", and man is the "head of woman", that we would be dishonoring our "heads" by the length of our hair. I also don't agree where it states that women should wear their hair up in a bun, I haven't seen any reference to this anywhere. This does bring up something to think about though.

Good one, Jen. A gold star for you!
Now where's FFC got to? Missing from class? Truant again? That naughty fellow...

Hmm, good points you made. I must go back and read it more critically again myself.

Meantime, how about this for a response...

Question 32: But doesn't Paul argue for a head covering for women in worship by appealing to the created order in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15? Why is the head covering not binding today while the teaching concerning submission and headship is?

The key question here is whether Paul is saying that creation dictates a head covering or that creation dictates that we use culturally appropriate expressions of masculinity and femininity, which just happened to be a head covering for women in that setting. We think the latter is the case. The key verses are: "Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering" (1 Corinthians 11:13-15).

How did nature teach that long hair dishonored a man and gave women a covering? Nature has not endowed women with more hair than men. In fact, if nature takes its course, men will have more hair than women because it will cover their face as well as their head. There must be another way that nature teaches on this subject! We believe custom and nature conspire in this pedagogy. On the one hand, custom dictates what hair arrangements are generally masculine or feminine. On the other hand, nature dictates that men feel ashamed when they wear symbols of femininity. We could feel the force of this by asking the men of our churches, "Does not nature teach you not to wear a dress to church?" The teaching of nature is the natural inclination of men and women to feel shame when they abandon the culturally established symbols of masculinity or femininity. Nature does not teach what the symbols should be.

When Paul says that a woman's hair "is given to her for a covering" (v. 15), he means that nature has given woman the hair and the inclination to follow prevailing customs of displaying her femininity, which in this case included letting her hair grow long and drawing it up into a covering for her head. So Paul's point in this passage is that the relationships of manhood and womanhood, which are rooted in the created order (1 Corinthians 11:7-9), should find appropriate cultural expression in the worship service. Nature teaches this by giving men and women deep and differing inclinations about the use of masculine and feminine symbols.

Source

It's not quite so wordy and explains what I thought was important, that being the relationship of hair style to culture and shame and respect and authority and... that kind of thing. That women wear their hair short these days is no more a matter of shame than a man wearing his hair long, this being a cultural thing. The problem is being out of step, such as a man wearing women's clothes. It is about being culturally appropriate.

No offense, Judah, But "culturally approprate"? It says in the bible "does not nature itself teach you that it shameful for a man to have long hair". Jesus Himself had short hair. (although pictures today have Him with long hair, why is unknown). Shouldn't we try to follow His example?

Judah wrote:Now where's FFC got to? Missing from class? Truant again? That naughty fellow...

Here I am. Judah, I'm just gonna play it safe and keep my hair short. By the way, isn't long and short regarding hair relelant to the times? I mean, when the Beatles first came over everyone said they had long hair like girls.

Seriously, I didn't read it yet, Judah, but I will. I just didn't want to cause you to sin by having authority over me.

Yes, they had long hair. But wasn't John Lennon also an atheist?

jenwat3 wrote:Yes, they had long hair. But wasn't John Lennon also an atheist?

Could be. He certainly was complex. I'm just saying that long or short hair can be relevant to the times. wouldn't you agree?

I guess you could say that. It still doesn't make it right. One thing I read is that the modern-day pictures of Jesus with long hair is actually a "remake" of the Roman god Jupiter. I have looked at pictures of him, and there definitely is a resemblance.

FFC, you know jolly well that I don't have "authority" over you in the context that Paul was speaking of, that is, in the visible church.
Indeed, I am your servant, just as you are mine. I will serve you by dumping your naughty posts in the garbage forum and you will serve me by paying attention in class! We are brother and sister, which means we can tease and torment each other like siblings are so inclined to do - and stick up for each other against non-believers (those outside the family) just as happens in families, er, usually. Er hmm, something like that.

Jen, I think that perhaps we are in danger of taking a too narrow view of this hair length connundrum. Step back some more inches from your Bible and look at the context of all this. Paul is actually discussing headship. He is wanting to align practice in church with the correct order of things as per God's order of creation. He is expecting men to be masculine and women to be feminine - a clear differentiation between gender - both in their appearances (which includes dress according to cultural dictates, hair fashion a part of that - and keep in mind that fashions and culture keeps changing) and their behaviour towards each other and in church worship. The emphasis is on making a clear differentiation in these matters, rather than exactly what the fashion trends happen to be. I guess this has something to do with literalism. FFC says he wears his hair short to be on the safe side, and there is nothing wrong with that. But what's the bet he doesn't go about wearing those long flowing first Century robes and tunics and bare legs and sandles (except perhaps to and fro the bathroom when ladies are visiting, or at the beach) and most unlikely to work or over at the supermarket. So how much on the safe side is he being? From a strictly literal point of view, it is all over for him. FFC, get into the right kind of gear, will ya! No excuses!

Why do we want to mimic the appearance of Jesus? For us women, that's going to be rather tricky for starters! I don't think the idea is about outward appearances, but about what is inside - our real selves, our souls. Paul is talking about how we relate to each other, not really about what we look like - or at least, only insomuch as it impinges on attitudes of respect and authority, that is, headship.

I thought the quote I provided in my previous post made it clear that the issue of "nature" was one of being shamed by dressing like opposite sex. If we were used to all men wearing frilly dresses and all women tights and tank tops, then a man not wearing a frilly dress would cause eyebrows to raise, especially if he went around wearing tights and a tank top. He should be ashamed of himself! Paul is saying that drag dressing produces shame. And culture defines what is "drag". That's what I understand is meant here by "nature" in the context in which Paul is speaking - the shame of dressing in the style of the opposite sex. Men can wear their hair long these days and still be identified quite clearly as men, and our culture does accept it for the most part.