Evidence for God from Science

Is that even a guy? It looks like a child on a chair! Never mind wanting to be that guy, I want the hair! I have always wanted loooooong hair like that.

Swamper wrote:

Gman wrote:Samson... Is that you?

I WANT TO BE THAT GUY.

Can you imagine washing that hair?!? You would have to walk through a car wash...and then it would take days to dry!

FFC wrote:

Swamper wrote:

Gman wrote:Samson... Is that you?

I WANT TO BE THAT GUY.

Can you imagine washing that hair?!? You would have to walk through a car wash...and then it would take days to dry!

...and...?

Maybe he/she is a relative of "cousin it."

Hey! that's my dad! Where'd you get his picture?!

What difference does in make in the grand scheme of things?

johnt wrote:What difference does in make in the grand scheme of things?

That's what I want to know.

Paul's letters on Corinth are the only letters in which I may believe we may compromise with what he says. I believe that Paul was sent by God to set up the church here on earth, and therefore I believe we must abide by what he wrote. Now, to why I think Corinthians 1 and 2 may be compromised with. Corinth had a lot of very unique problems than the rest of the world, and while there is a lot of great information in those books that can pertain to all of us, there is also a lot of cultural messages for Corinth as well. In regards to the original verse in question with this point, Paul is also talkign about how woman covering their head in church. In this instant I believe Paul is referring to Corinth culture. In Corinth prostitutes and such, people who would maybe be "unclean" or the extreme lower class, would have their heads shaved. So of course God wouldn't want a women from this town attending church with her head shaved, for she would be sending that message (of course you must take this in context. What it is saying is if you know you will attend church, don't shave your head for then you will have to attend church sending that message). Now I think if 1 Corinthians: 11:16 Paul is saying that if this is not your custom, than it should not be the custom of the churches. Therefore saying that if shaved heads for woman or long hair for men DOES NOT SEND THAT MESSAGE, THEN THE CHURCH NEEDS NOT BE WORRIED ABOUT IT. But if you live in a culture where those messages are sent, then the church needs to be aware of that, for the whole point of being in church is to honor and glorify Him.

But why would it be a shame for a man to have long hair? How does nature teach us that?

FFC wrote:But why would it be a shame for a man to have long hair? How does nature teach us that?

I have quoted further back here the following...

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.

How does this not answer your question, FFC?

So if it is not according to the culture or the custom it is against nature if we do or don't do something? Hmmm.

As an analogy, your mother probably taught you certain table manners as you were growing up - for instance, to eat in a certain way with a knife and fork. The use of a knife and fork is according to custom, in accordance with your culture. It has become natural for you to eat that way. But other cultures teach differently, such as in India a child is taught to scoop up rice in one hand using their fingers to transfer it to the mouth. If you are not Indian, but you did that at home in defiance of being taught to use a fork, then that would likely be felt as not natural.

I think the meaning meant in that passage is that it is not considered natural for a man to assume feminine attributes such as habits of dress (defined according to custom or culture) and that it is natural for men to conform to what is culturally considered to be masculine instead. In other words, it goes against nature and one experiences a sense of shame, the pricking of conscience, for doing something taught as culturally inappropriate.

How do others understand this issue?

FFC who says the very nature of things would have to mean Mother Earth, or that type of nature. If Corinth had those cultural references, and you lived there your entire life, you would probably consider them the very nature of things because they had been ingrained in you for so many years, so maybe that is a way to explain that.