Long hair on men

No. Since it is not defined, it must be considered according to either historic or cultural considerations. Both would tend to work against the position that a man should have hair down to their shoulders.

It is a matter of obedience and submission... of desiring to appear in a way that glorifies God. I have yet to run across someone arguing for the "right" to have long hair who gave "I want to more greatly glorify God" as a reason.

 

Joshua, I am hoping that Shiloh intended queer by the real definition rather than the modern perversion of that legitimate English word.

 

But that's just it, Scott. Long or short hair HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOD'S GLORY. So why does it matter to you?

 

I disagree. Our appearance whether we like it or not makes a statement.

Long hair is perceived by many including myself as a statement of rebellion and desire to appeal to/fellowship with the world.

 

So because it's "perceived by many" as a statement of something, that makes it ok? Gratutitous sex is considered and "perceived by many" as a normal and responsive thing. Of course, God's word says differently. Just because you think that and others do too, does not make it "the way it should be."

 

No. Because due to this perception it creates a stumbling block unnecessarily.

Oranges and apples. One could not accept the Bible and suggest that this behavior glorifies God.

No. I won't take a razor or condemn them. I am simply saying they should be more concerned about the testimony their appearance gives...

Further, since the Bible does say it is a shame, a principle applies.

 

No. Since it is not defined, it must be considered according to either historic or cultural considerations. Both would tend to work against the position that a man should have hair down to their shoulders.

It is a matter of obedience and submission... of desiring to appear in a way that glorifies God. I have yet to run across someone arguing for the "right" to have long hair who gave "I want to more greatly glorify God" as a reason.

Again I disagree, and we can leave it at that. The Bible does not say to follow historical or cultural considerations when something is unclear, i.e., undefined. If you wish to, by all means, do so. Like I said it is between you and God.

I also disagree that a man with long hair cannot glorify God, by his appearance. I commend those Christian men who donate their hair to "locks of love", and I certainly do not think God looks down on them or is ashamed of them.

 

Nazarites were commanded not to cut their hair, hence Samson's problem. Therefore, was the Nazarite to live in shame? We know that the first Baptist was a Nazarite, do we not? Did he ever cut his hair? Was he a shame?

In discussing the issue of long hair, I think it is important to make sure we don't introduce "law" into the Christian walk. Teaching, even by Paul in scriptures, is not the giving of law. My grandmother belonged to a baptist church that would turn women out of the church if it could be proven that scissors had been used on their hair. That is more wrong that going against Paul's teaching, I believe.

I don't claim to fully understand this teaching of Paul, whether it is absolute at all times and in all cultures. I do know that the Nazarite thing puzzles me and prevents me from fully embracing the "short hair only" argument.

 

Let's find common ground, shall we?



Now we can all agree, THIS is a sin.

 

I vote--yes that is a sin.

Bro Tony

 

Not according to Josh and film pro but what do....oh never mind

 

Cross-dressing with its various attributes WITH INTENT TO DECEIVE is the sin.

If the man is trying to pass for a woman with long hair, it is sinful. If you can still tell he's a guy, and he does not mean to be anything else but a guy, then it may be poor taste, but not a sin.

 

I, in my quite limited wisdom, feel I have made two salient points here on this thread:

1. A combover is a sin.
2. A mullet is a sin.
3. Taking me seriously in this thread is extremely close to one.

 

Which two were salient?

 

There ya go...AMEN!!!

(I realize this was said many days ago and was said sarcastically to make a point. I agree with your point.)

 

Talk about apples and oranges

Last time I checked, pointing out the unsaved couldn't care less about how "Christians" dress/look, is nowhere near condoning gang activity, smoking, or even drinking, not to mention long hair on men. Do you people actually read? You know what they say when you "assume". I can guarantee it isn't "legalist".

 

How sad that "it's all about appearance" in your opinion. I suppose that the nicely dressed young mormon missionaries that comb your neighborhood would fit your definition of a good Christian?
Beware a wolf in sheep's clothing....and yes, us heavey set gals are glad that our sweethearts didn't think it was "all about appearance" or some men would've missed out on the loves of their lives.

 

dcorbett....

I think his point was that for the world it very often IS all about appearance. I believe that that verse that says that man looks on the outside but God looks on the heart is also pointing out that man DOES look on the outside and we ought to take our appearance seriously.

 

Most grooming is symbolic. We labor to look a certain way because, well, we want to look that way.

It isn't arbitrary and it isn't meaningless.

Probably none of us creates the categories. We find them and we adapt ourselves to them. At work, I look as I "should." On a ball field, at the supper table, or meeting with a government official, I can choose to look as I should or I can choose to look otherwise.

What I cannot do is claim that the categories aren't there. At least, I cannot claim it with a straight face.