I'm not judging anybody, since I know they do what they do with the intent to obey, but I also don't think this is a matter of Christian liberty so it's really not something to leave up to individuals. Either long hair is the covering Paul puts so much energy into exhorting us to wear, in which case this should be enforced in the churches, or the head should be covered with something additional, in which case THAT should be enforced in the churches. Covering the head IS Paul's command, and he's knocking himself out in this passage telling us why we need to do it. It's no minor thing if he takes fifteen verses to explain it.

If, as I believe, the long hair is merely an example he is using to argue for the additional covering, then the long hair is not a command, the additional covering is, but if, as so many here believe, that long hair IS the covering, then it IS a command and it should be enforced.

Paul is apparently answering some questions the elders of the Corinthian church had about this, as he has been doing about many problems that occurred in that church, and telling the ELDERS what THEY should do. THEY have the responsibility to enforce Paul's command here, but I don't see that this is done in any church where long hair is taken to be the covering. In many churches I've formerly attended there would be some women in the church who believe long hair is the covering and they would therefore have long hair. There might also be a few from an older generation who believed in an additional covering and you would see some hats here and there. I was always a bit fascinated by one middle-aged lady who would wear a pretty broad brimmed hat over her long flowing blond locks. But nobody enforced anything concerning this passage.

Churches that understand the covering to be a shawl or a hat or something else generally DO require it of the women, which is right, since clearly Paul is ORDERING us to obey this.

But generally it is simply ignored. In fact it's regarded as a sort of hot potato. I ran across sermons by a few decidedly nervous pastors who confessed they'd really rather not have to preach on it. One way or another SOMEBODY is going to be mad at them.

"Let her be covered" sounds like a command to me.

No, the scripture is not talking about Jewish women. As Gill also says, there were Corinthian women in the church, and probably Roman women and maybe even German women for that matter.

I'm fairly sure he didn't mean anything other than joking about it and pointing out that he doesn't by any means have what could be considered long hair for a man. And sometimes he has NO HAIR. It gets pretty hot in the summer time when you're working outside. So since he has NO hair he can't really be accused of it being too long could he. ;) Plus, I think he looks pretty good bald. However I come from a family of good looking bald men so maybe that has influenced my thinking. :)

My hair ranges from middle of my back to the back of my knees. Once I start sitting on it (every 2-4 years) I grow it long enough to be able to donate 10-12" of my hair to be made into wigs for children/women going through chemotherapy (or other hair loss) and still have enough hair for myself that is unquestionably long hair.

A friend once told me I had a hair ministry. I don't know about that... I just like the idea of being able to give someone who is bald through illness and such a covering when they have none...

Beth reminded me of John Gill's commentary and I found it online. A good reminder because his interpretation of the passage is pretty much the one I ended up with.

http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/...inthians11.htm

Just a passing point -- I don't think it's important to put pressure on men to have "short" hair, but that's not because mine is long (it never has been). Paul says that nature teaches us that it is a shame for men to have long hair. I've seen churches turn this over twice -- turning shame into sin, and then making rules about men having short hair (even though that's not what Paul said). Legalism -- making up rules where Scripture isn't specific. Anyway, it's only a side-issue to the whole "covering" thing.

Well put Granny (post #59) Connie should learn as you have. If you have been convicted by the Word and the Spirit to have an extra head covering, it is only obedient for you cover your head. I have not been so instructed. If you have read all of the post on this thread, you know we will not convince Connie and Connie will not convince us so I say sow the word and let the Holy Spirit do His job.

Here's one for long hair: off with his head! Where do they cut? The neck!

I'd say your hair was short enough if it didn't get in the way of the blade.

Actually, this was a custom invented by lost Jews in the second century - not during the time of the Apostles or Christ.

Back to another point:

Considering that Paul was writing to correct the Corinthians about the many things that they were doing wrong, it makes perfect sense that he would address women with short hair and men with long - they probably had that mixed up in their congregation too, and Paul had to address it.

I checked the history and checked many commentaries that covered the history. No women wore their hair short in those days. Period. That simply did not occur until the 20th century. It was regarded as a disgrace in all western cultures and possibly all cultures in the world until it became fashionable after WWI. Africans can't easily grow their hair long so that is probably the only exception.

Again, Paul was not addressing hair length, he was using hair length as one of his arguments -- a woman's long hair was a hint that since nature covered her she should also cover, while a man's short hair or lack of hair was a hint that since nature didn't cover him he also shouldn't cover. Check Gill's commentary for an example of just one who reads it that way.

What Paul was addressing was OBVIOUSLY the refusal of some women to cover their heads, and probably also the habit of some men in covering theirs.

And I'd still like to see evidence from someone that there is any commentator at all who understood the covering to be long hair before the 20th century. That seems to be a peculiarly recent misreading of the scripture.

I also read many conflicting reports on when the Jewish custom of having men cover the head in prayer began. But if that's not certain, what is certain is that some Greek and Roman men covered the head in attendance on their various gods. Again, I believe Gill comments on this.

See Albert Barnes' comments, 19th century. Comments that women should be "veiled" and then on verse 15 says hair is the natural "veil" a woman is given.

Adam Clarke, 19th century, also says on verse 15 that her hair is a natural veil.

As I said before, I don't really care what the commentators say, but there is the answer to your question. I am sure there are more, but I don't have the time or desire to keep going through them.

If those are online I will check them, but the scripture itself already says that her hair is a natural veil or covering so that alone proves nothing. They'd have to say that the hair IS the covering that Paul is asking for and what you have quoted does not show that.

Well, Diligent, I checked your references to Barnes and Clarke and it appears that you misread them. They are saying what all the commentators of that period said, just as I had found.

Albert Barnes is very clear that a veil, a cloth covering, is what Paul is requiring: http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/vi...co&chapter=011

(From what I read, the heathen priestesses most of the time did wear veils in their service to their gods, though not in everyday public life as the Jewish women did, so he has a different history than I found, but in any case he is quite clear that the passage is talking about an additional cloth covering and not hair.)

And Adam Clarke also makes it very clear that the covering is a cloth covering, not the hair: http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarke1cor11.htm

(He’s wrong about the customs of the time from what I have read. The Greek and Roman women did NOT always wear a veil or covering when they went out; only the Jewish women did. In any case it's clear he's talking about a cloth covering and not hair.

However, he is one who believes that the Jewish custom of men’s covering their heads was the practice in Paul’s time.)

He spends quite a bit of time on the hair problem but although he says it is in a sense a veil for women, as the scripture itself also says, he nowhere suggests that it IS the same as the veil or covering Paul is requiring of women, but from the above equation of that covering with a "cap or turban" in the case of a man, there is no doubt he recognizes that just as Paul is telling men not to wear anything on their heads, he is asking for a cloth covering for women.

Not to change the subject, just a look at the other extreme: I shave my head. Why, you ask? Because I have just enough "mange" to make combing my hair a hassle.

Hey Connie,

I'm like you, I can't keep my "mouth" shut. Here is a thought for you and it is as plain as night is to day unless you want to interpert it and not just take it like it is.

Titus 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;

Titus 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

Titus 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Connie, above is our ministery.

I know nothing about you, except that you live alone. I could assume many things from that statement you made. I could jump to many conclusions, but that would be interpreting falsely, insinuating at things, and putting words in your mouth.

You do not have a head (husband) above you so now you are answerable to God.

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him

You would do well to lean on the Holy Spirit to understand God's Words and not continually look to man. When the preachers or teachers speak it is not they who should convince you, but the Words that they use that come out Of God's mouth.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

I really don't care what you do about your covering, that again is between you and The Lord. I just point out a more nobel ministery for us older women.:) I said older, not old.

I pray you do not take this with bitterness but with an open heart, for I send it your way with a prayer that you will receive it as unto theLord.

1 Corinthians 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

Renee, I have to say I don't think you are being honest with yourself about why you posted that supposedly helpful advice to me on this thread. It's good Biblical advice, of course, but somehow in this context it's hard to believe it was meant in a good spirit. It's completely off topic, it's highly personal, which is usually considered out of bounds in a general discussion forum, and it implies that I'm doing something wrong but without stating it directly. It seems to me that my only real offense is that I disagree with you and others about the woman's head covering, but you don't want to debate it, as you've already said that nothing I could possibly say on this subject is going to change your mind, so shouldn’t you just ignore the thread?

As for the personal part of your post, maybe my prayer request on the appropriate thread for that purpose will answer some of your questions. Feel free to ask whatever more you would like to know.

Take it how you will. All she was doing is reminding you what the aged women should be focusing on: Teaching the younger women. Teaching the next generation to be good wives and mothers.

Matters of the heart and of actions... not customs.

Now that you've posted your prayer request I can see why you would personally take offense at those particular verses. Which were meant as a reminder to teach women and stop trying to persuade the men. Not a personal attack.

,

Why would she continue to debate? Why do you want her to debate? The men have already answered you. As have we. Hence the reminder of what the older women should be doing instead of trying to convince the men of their customs and beliefs.

So you ARE trying to change our minds...

Shouldn't YOU? You started the thread asking for people's "Thoughts". Which were given.

In post #15 "but if nobody else is interested or willing to consider my point of view it's best to drop it." and the subject was dropped.

Luke posted his "thoughts" which you replied to and got the whole ball rolling again. At which point about post #35 you got upset and called him a "rude young man" and a "superficial fool." (Which I do believe was the first actual blatantly personal attack in this this thread)

Post #46 Shows your reason for starting this and coming back to it again and again: Really? I've yet to see that beyond what you implied in post #15

You do realize you're going to have to keep responding as long as you're here as more and more people will sign up and post their "kneejerk" pat answers as they go through the forum.

The funny thing here of all the husbands of wives, wives of husbands, mothers and daughters, you with no husband are the only one that is holding to this. You are the one that keeps coming back to convince us we're wrong.

Since there are very few women in the whole forum and 2 or 3 of us already made it clear that we will follow our husbands and THEY have made it clear where they stand. Why do you persist? It is not our custom, yet you keep trying to convince us of the rightness of it. We quite frankly don't care if you cover up or not that is up to you. Or if you cover a tiny crown patch or every last strand.

You cling to your commentators and histories and men that you place above you in the place of a husband or father in instructing you... yet who chooses that? You do. You were in a church that didn't do head coverings. You started wearing a covering (outside of that church's custom and the men you placed above you) and tried to convince them of it. You left that church. (For other reasons)

I can see how someone would be confused when your commentators can't make up their mind what it means. BTW my husband did not misread them he was referring to:

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible
1Co 11:15
Verse 15. It is a glory to her. It is an ornament and adorning. The same instinctive promptings of nature which make it proper for a man to wear short hair, make it proper that the woman should suffer hers to grow long.
For a covering. Margin, Veil. It is given to her as a sort of natural veil, and to indicate the propriety of her wearing a veil. It answered the purposes of a veil when it was suffered to grow long, and to spread over the shoulders and over parts of the face, before the arts of dress were invented or needed.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
1Co 11:15
But if a woman have long hair - The Author of their being has given a larger proportion of hair to the head of women than to that of men; and to them it is an especial ornament, and may in various cases serve as a veil.

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
1Co 11:15

But if a woman have long hair,… And wears it, without cutting it, as men do:

it is a glory to her; it is comely and beautiful; it is agreeable to her sex, she looks like herself; it becomes and adorns her:

for her hair is given her for a covering; not instead of a covering for her head, or any other part of her body, so that she needs no other: we read indeed of the daughter of Nicodemus ben Gorion, that she was obliged to make use of her hair for a covering in such a sense

I'm off to enjoy dinner with my husband and son.

What can I say? You are determined to find fault with me personally, in fact you seem to be bending over backwards to find every fault in me you can, and I'm not going to deny I have plenty, including reacting to new posts after calling the thread closed. Yes, a fault of mine no doubt, but that seems to be all you or others on this thread are interested in, my faults, except also to cherrypick the parts of scripture and commentaries that you like best. I haven't ignored the passages about the hair, but you all keep quoting the stuff about long hair and ignoring the stuff about covering the head. Oh and how you love to brag about your good fortunes at my expense. Long hair you can sit on, brag brag brag, all pride. Your great good fortune in having a husband and a family. Good for you. Where's the Christian humility in anything you say?

I like debate, and if others continue to debate with me on the topic, no doubt I will do so as well, although I must admit I find the company here less and less attractive, less and less Christian. It is just hypocritical pretense to post "helpful" scripture to me when it's obvious it is nothing but a way to covertly criticize. You need to examine your own hearts. There is at least one other woman here who has been "lecturing" men and in fact in a very impolite way, but I haven't seen anyone criticize her for it until a couple of new members did, I wonder why not.

Interesting that you all have so much in common with the "accuser of the brethren." You delight in finding fault, and delight a bit more than is seemly in your good fortunes and personal righteousness.

This idea that I give commentaries any special position is just sheer inability to read what I've written. Good grief.

Is this site "fundamental Baptist" in general? If so I think I've learned which denomination to avoid.

Connie,

The site is not "affiliated" with any denomination. Clearly we have a lot of different types of people here, including Pentecostals, which couldn't be considered fundamental Baptists.

I've tried to read several of your posts without comment in order to make sure I understand what you are writing and avoid any knee-jerk reactions. It appears to me that you are quick to be personally offended. I can understand how that happens -- because none of us are in person, and words on a page lack the physical context of speech, it is only normal for us to "read in" intents and emotions of a writer. But I don't think you've been personally attacked, at least not to the extent you have assumed.

For a second, consider that you are telling us that there is a rule that us/our wives are not obeying. Every onus is upon you to make your case, not the other way around. We are all quite satisfied that a woman's hair is her covering, and that additional covering is not necessary. If you think we are being disobedient, it is up to you to prove it.

You have clearly demonstrated a reliance upon commentators for your information and have been open about doing so. I tried to show you that you are mistaken about your belief that commentary before the 20th century was unanimous in opinion, but the reality is that it doesn't matter. We're not "cherry picking" from commentators, because we don't regard them as the authority in the first place! I mistakenly engaged with you on the terms of authority that you laid down. I should simply have not bothered with that.

Do not take it personally that we believe your admonitions for additional coverings to be legalistic and extrabiblical.

You don't have to "drop it" but you should try to do better not reading into people's posts things they have not said.

BTW, this is a pretty serious claim. You have essentially accused all of us of being disobedient, and then when we take issue with your claims, turn around and call us accusers!

Is it "reasonable" to accuse us as being in league with Satan? (This is at least the second time you have made this accusation).

We don't delight "in finding fault", we just get tired of an argument presented over and over again - "delight" has nothing to do with it. And we don't gloat over our "good fortune" and your "poor fortune".

Are you jealous of our "good fortune"? I don't know how many children you have but - have you ever lost one? My wife and I lost our eldest son 4 years ago - the Lord took him home at the age of 42 (if you haven't gone through that, you have no reason to judge us on our "good fortunes"!)

You are a Humanist - plain & simple (you may not know it, and you may not believe it, but you manifest every tendency that Humanists have. You operate in the realm of the mind (the intellect) and that is why I stopped dealing with you because, although you have "knowledge", you lack spiritual discernment; understanding; and wisdom.

For the record: This site is not a Baptist Site (although there are a lot of Baptists represented). My wife and I are in an Independent Bible church, patterned after the New Testament churches - and very close to the modern day "brethren" churches (minus the "hair covering requirement, I might add). Actually you should feel right at home in a "brethren" (Plymouth Brethren, Grace Brethren, etc.) church, because they have a "requirement" that women "must" use a head covering.

You have a "problem" that many modern day Christian women (not all) have in the U.S.A. and elsewhere in the Western World. You have NO authority, but your own opinions (Humanism again), and you are unwilling to be in subjection to the Holy Scriptures.

I do not delight in telling you this. I take no special pleasure in doing this, however, you are extremely argumentative and when people dispute your beliefs or refuse to believe what you believe you take it personal and lash out and make these unwarranted and unfounded accusations against the brethren here on this site.

Stay or leave, but if you stay - don't accuse us of being lead by the devil, as you did in a past post, or that we all have "something in common" with him. We haven't once made such a strong accusation against you.

George

Diligent, I don't take anything anyone has said specifically about my arguments to be personal, I only take the personal comments as personal and the thread is full of them. And just as you say one can't read intent in this medium, I don't really feel all that offended as you think I am, I'm just calling it as I see it. But I certainly don't appreciate the atmosphere of continual personal comment in a discussion about an objective question of the meaning of scripture.

I do NOT "rely on" commentators, Diligent. In my original study I made GOOD use of them, dozens of them, in supporting my own personal reading of that scripture. That is the proper way to make a case for an interpretation of scripture, to acknowledge all the points of view on it you can find, and make your case for and against as you personally read it. I must have read and heard at least thirty commentators and preachers on the subject, in fact I'm sure in my original study I covered Clarke and Barnes too, because I covered all the commentaries on various internet Bible sites, but in their case I no doubt just tallied them up on the side of the head covering and against hair when I understood that was what they were saying, without quoting them, so I didn't remember what they said.

I agree with some commentators and disagree with others. I do think it is something to think about that there are no commentaries from before the 20th century that argue Paul meant long hair is the head covering. Yes, you are unfortunately wrong about Barnes and Clarke, they certainly did not say it was hair, and I honestly cannot see how you continue to think they did. I read them when you posted them and there is no other conclusion. You aren't going to listen to me, but maybe you'd think about a dozen men who agree with me. Or maybe not, but in any case there is no other way to argue this. I made my statement that the hair interpretation began recently and you answered with a couple of commentaries you think show me wrong and I answered back that they don't show that at all, but then I get criticized for answering you. What else am I going to do?

Yes, I consider some of you to have been engaging in accusation, personal accusation, which should have no part in this discussion. Three on this thread have made the subject matter personal instead of addressing the topic. People who don't know me and have no rightful authority over me. There is something very wrong with this.

Perhaps I've underestimated the degree to which YOU all have felt accused, but since I've been trying to stick to the objective matter and not accuse you personally, in fact gone out of my way to acknowledge that I figure you are being obedient according to your own light, I can't see that that excuses some from lashing out personally. That I'm suggesting they are wrong about a passage of scripture? Of course it would be hard to have to consider such a thing after a lifetime of thinking a different way. It could even hurt feelings. But what does that have to do with the objective facts involved? If you disagree then what's to take personally? I've been arguing the topic itself, but some of my opponents have chosen to attack me personally instead, which I guess is BECAUSE they disagree with me, but that's not the right way to go about it.

This is my 6th post since we started this forum. My first being to pray and share with WhyIEyesYa regarding his prayer request. I find it humorous that you know so much about me and my intentions from so few posts. (I know a lot about you from the 10 times that number of posts you have made in half the time.)

Since you have assumed so much about me from so little here are a few truths about me.

I tend to focus on support for young wives dealing with infertility and child loss specifically, but marriage in general. Where I have found that what God has given us over the years has placed us in a position to help the hurting hearts of younger women (and men) who are questioning if God even hears or cares about them. Who as a young couple (sometimes in youth and almost always in years married) are struggling. The focus being the heart and faith in hard times and in marriage.

This is the ministry I focus on after my duties as a wife, mother and daughter. After supporting my husband in his ministries and work. (You can take that as more bragging if you wish, but its a simple statement of my order of priority.)

A role taught to me by my mother who was and is a Proverbs 31 kind of woman who follows the instructions in Titus.

Proverbs 31:28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.

Titus 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
Titus 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

This is where I come from and why. I deal in the realm given to us for our ministry and leave the doctrine instructing and most of all persuading to the husbands, fathers, and sons.

You really do have a problem with reading comprehension. I was showing the flip side of my husband shaving his head. I also said why I grow it that long: To GIVE away to others who have no covering and who are ashamed. It is actually quite humbling to cut off a foot worth of hair and give my "glory" to another woman or child who has none. And in order to have hair that is by any one's standards of still being "long" and to donate like that it has to be really long. In your opinion that is pride and not service to another sister.

You really are going to take offense at anything at this point aren't you? I was simply saying I'm done posting cause I had to go.

FYI it isn't a secret that Diligent and I have dealt with infertility for most of our 14 years of being married. That we have one child. That after 8 1/2 years of praying and hoping God blessed us with a second child which 4 weeks ago tomorrow we lost to miscarriage. But I guess that is just me bragging on my good fortune.

You might give people the benefit of the doubt before assuming everything is an attack on you.

Another FYI before you ask why don't we just adopt? Because its at least $20-30k, weeks of classes and other things, and waiting lists are very long because very few children born out of wedlock these days are actually put up for adoption anymore. This is a plain fact. Not an accusation.

And I'm quite sure something if not all of what I've said is going to get your non-Irish-Irish-temper up. Funny thing is I actually *am part Irish* with the temper to boot... and despite the fact that you have basically insulted my husband, my father, my mother and myself. I'm not angry or upset in any way.

OK, George, I guess it would be more spiritual of me just to announce that the scripture says what I say it says and not what you say it says, but since I muster arguments that makes me a humanist. Paul mustered arguments himself in that passage, maybe half a dozen different arguments depending on how one counts.

You are wrong, I have NOT taken anything personal when the argument itself is addressed, except when one young guy came on slinging comments without regard to anything that came before, which is really rude. Otherwise I've stuck to the facts and only objected to the personal comments, and considering the provocation very little as a matter of fact, in my opinion. But all you are doing is denying that there is any provocation etc etc etc.

You don't think calling me a "humanist" is about the worst accusation a person could make? It's like calling someone a heretic, which seems to be done around here quite frequently and unjustly in my opinion. "Beth" drove two pentecostals off the board with that accusation, very unfairly in my opinion and I'm completely against the pentecostal/charismatic movement, and I didn't see you getting on her case.

And I did think you were out of this discussion as you said you were. I've been answering new people who have entered.

JaeByrd, I said nothing except in response to things you ACTUALLY said, and implied nothing beyond that. Perhaps you are unaware of what you actually said to me and how you said it. I am sorry for your loss, but all I knew was what you actually said to me. And I'm sorry, much as I honor your good works, TALKING about them is not the thing to do, and it does come off as bragging, sorry.

Talking about how I brag about my hair and my good fortune and calling me prideful is not implying something about me? I did not make this personal. There were a LOT of things I could have said if I had wanted to get personal.

Clarifying your mistake in assuming things that you knew nothing about me is further bragging?

Let me make it very clear what I am saying and why I said what I said:

As one woman to another woman. Stop preaching to the men and stick with the realm of women as you should. The men have already refuted you on your issues. The women have rejected you and pointed out the rightful place of a woman in teaching. Teaching other women.

This is my last post on the subject as my husband has told me it isn't worth my time. He is right. You are convinced in your custom (which we are more than happy to leave you with), but will continue ad nauseam to refute and push your custom as the right one onto everyone else in the forum.

Both sides have been presented for anyone else to read and make their own choice. I see no further reason to continue debating.

Jaebyrd,
Your reply to Connie in Post 95 was wll done. You would warm the heart of many mothers.

Yes, you did make this personal, from your very first comments, but it doesn't matter.

Yes, that is what you were saying without saying it. It comes down to "I'm doing things right, I'm better than you, I have glorious hair I can sit on, I know how to live the Christian life as a woman right and you don't" and your daughter added further personal insinuations, all of which apparently you think a perfectly OK thing to say to a perfect stranger who has done nothing to give you reason for your opinion except defend my view of a part of scripture. I still want to know why nobody has found fault with Beth for arguing with men here. Why just me? No, I don't want to know. I don't want to know anything from anybody any more. Examine your own heart for a change, including why you congratulated your daughter in front of me instead of in private.

The men's refutations are wrong and the women are all related to them.

Proverbs 15:1 A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.
Connie,
I thought I was giving a soft answer, I"m sorry it was taken as grevious words.

I was the one bragging that I could sit on my hair.

When you work on a farm (sometime in thigh deep mud, running a 12 horse tiller) it is a pain to keep long hair. I have kept my hair long at the request of my husband. I have trimmed it when necessary but have not cut it for 47 years. Many a time I have almost cut it out of rebelion. I glory in my long hair, proud that My Lord has given me a glorious head of hair for a covering. Like I said in another post.(when I comended you on your hair length) most women our age have hair above their ears.

JaeByrd knows me well and knows (even though you doubt it) that the scriptures I quoted came from the desire that women obey the Lord in our ministery.

This will be my last post in this thread, and again I repeat: do what you want with your glory. It is between you and the Lord.
.
Revelation 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Looking toward the Glorious apearing of Our Lord of Glory.

If anyone will reread my post 91, especially the bolded parts of the quotes, I would think you couldn't have any doubt that both Clarke and Barnes understand Paul to be advocating a cloth head covering and not hair as a woman's only covering, so that my statement that the hair interpretation didn't get started until the 20th century still stands.

I may be argumentative, but I'm also right about this.

I would like to make some general statements about the unfortunate conflict on this thread, maybe to help smooth it over, though I don't know if that will be the result. This isn't really the place for such a discussion but it's where the problem came up so I'll go with it.

I do think that if a Christian feels it is very important to correct another Christian it should be done in private, and not in a way that is publicly exposing them to humiliation. Public humiliation is for church discipline of a person well known to a congregation after suitable attempts to discuss a problem in private have failed. It only seems right to be cautious about correcting a Christian you do not know personally and who may have a different church background than you have. Are you really trying to correct, to help the person, or are you just lording it over the person? I do think that needs some prayerful consideration.

I also think sarcastic cracks should be avoided, such as telling me I don't know English simply because I dared to consider what the original Greek words Paul used for "covering" are. There seem to be many hidden "rules" in this forum that are unfamiliar to me, such as the attitude that there is no need to investigate the Greek to understand the Bible. Well, I do appreciate the basic idea behind this, and this place has made me aware of many of the horrible effects imposed on Christians by the acceptance of the new Bible versions, including the fact that we have to get used to looking up the original languages, which really should not be required of us. So I appreciate that basic idea, but to ridicule a person who does do that doesn't show a spirit of helpfulness at all.

That said, I really am interested in knowing what women are Biblically permitted to do. I don't want to discuss that on this thread but I am interested. Especially if there are rules here that I'm not aware of. I'm not completely sure what I'm being criticized for.

If it is for disagreeing with men, then why aren't you also upbraiding Beth? Is a woman never to put forth an argument that a man is wrong about something? Never? I'd really like to know, is this forbidden? Or forbidden under certain circumstances? If so, it would be nice to know in advance that this rule is going to be enforced here before a person says anything at all. And if it's violated by a person who doesn't know the rules, wouldn't it be better to be friendly and polite about it than just come on laying down the law and insinuating an intent to disobey? I'd really like to know what I'm allowed to do.

I think a lot about scripture and Christian life. Am I not allowed ever to talk about these things from a position of having knowledge of my own about them? I'd really like to know, and the Biblical reasons for it. Am I not allowed to have studied a part of scripture and formed a clear opinion of it? I really want to know, is this forbidden? Does it have to be only for myself if in fact I've discovered what Paul actually said and I know he didn't talk only to me personally? If everything I'm doing here IS out of bounds BIBLICALLY, I'd certainly like to know it and obey the Bible.

Unfortunately this is not the thread for discussing it and I don't think I'm up to discussing it right now anyway, but if someone wanted to make a thread on the subject later on that would be welcome.

In closing I have to say, I abhor humanism and it is very painful to be accused of it. What have I done to deserve the accusation? Simply quoted commentaries? Is that all? I don't use the term "humanism" much but to me humanism is allowing human wisdom to contradict the Bible. I've spent a lot of time arguing for creation over evolution for instance, from a strict reading of Genesis, a 6000-year-old earth and a worldwide Flood some 4500 years ago. Some of those I've argued with support reading Genesis to make room for the possibility of evolution even though they regard themselves as Christians and for the most part have a good understanding of the gospel. Seems to me that's allowing worldly (humanistic?) concepts to determine what the Bible says, but I'm opposing them, not allowing them myself. I also think "humanism" probably refers to thinking there's room for psychological understanding of spiritual problems, but I argue that the Bible is sufficient.

I suspect there is a wrong kind of anti-intellectualism going on here. God gave us intellectual ability and like all our abilities it should be used in His service. The mere exercise of intellect is not against God, it depends completely on how it is used, and if I'm a "humanist" because I use my mind, I have to disagree, I use it in His service as far as I am able and understand. But maybe as a woman I'm not allowed to? I hope if anyone wants to discuss this you will think these things through prayerfully and carefully.

Jaebird, I hope you will continue to feel comfortable in sharing how you apply scripture to your own life.

I don't know why, but some will take offense when we share how we personally, (along with the Bible and the guidance of the Holy Spirit) make decisions re: obedience to God.

I for one was inspired to hear your story about your long hair and how you share this wonderful gift with others.

If the Lord has given you a beautiful covering and He says it Himself that He has given you this covering for your glory. Then I say go ahead and brag.

He made women beautiful. He desires for us to look feminine.

and of course everything we are given is from Him, so we also brag in the Lord!!

Praise be to Him!!!!!

George's concerns about humanism
 

I found George asking some questions on another thread about The Humanist Manifesto which he brought up here a couple times in the process of accusing me of being a humanist. I don't know if I ever read the Humanist Manifesto but I'm sure it made little impression on me if I did, and after going and reading it online just now -- I read I and skimmed the other 2 -- I can say that I consider the thing to be an abomination, a work of the devil. To accuse me of anything out of that monstrosity makes George guilty of a serious failure of Christian judgment. To put it nicely.

George wants an assessment of "how much influence Humanism has had on the Western World in the last 120 years or so." I'd say quite a bit, but not necessarily under that name. George's focus is so particularly aimed at these Manifestos that he's probably overlooking all the other trends that have contributed to the mess he's apparently talking about, under other names. I haven't heard anyone even use the term "humanism" in a long time, and I have no idea how much influence the Humanist Association may have had, but I know those same ideas are embedded in the culture through many other sources by now. Does George know where socialism originated? (Answer: Liberal Christianity in the 19th century) The ACLU? (Similar origin, linked up with Communism in the early 20th century). Is George aware of the influence of the Frankfurt School? All the poison that came to flower in the 60s was focused through the work of that institution, Cultural Marxism being its name, the "sexual freedom" poison, the gay rights poison, the feminist poison, the abortion poison, the "liberation" of all the evils on this planet I think, the virulent attacks on Christianity. Is George up on Postmodernism? Does George know anything about Deconstructionism and its source? These are fruits of the Frankfurt School that have been poisoning our universities since the 60s. Oh yes, it all started much earlier than that and the Humanist Association was at least one voice leading up to it I'm sure.

These are enemies I have been encountering and battling to the best of my ability on other message boards for some years now, but George calls me a "humanist."

Well, maybe a woman shouldn't be doing this sort of thing. I really don't know. Maybe although I have no family I should nevertheless try to aim myself to be helpful in that direction. I'd love to have more of a part in my grandson's life but that's not realistically possible right now. I hope I will have a good influence on him in the time I do get to be with him and certainly through prayer. Perhaps I should spend more time with my nieces and nephews and their families, who live a little farther than my car can be trusted to take me these days, but if it's what I'm supposed to do then the Lord would make it possible. I've felt remiss as an aunt but also don't see that I have anything to offer. Only one of them is Christian, and he's involved in a Oneness Pentecostal cult, which makes our conversations a bit tricky, although for the most part I have better conversations with him than with his unbeliever sister who resents my attempts to encourage her to stick with her husband. At least I got my brother, their father, saved -- he thinks he is anyway, we'll have to see, at least he's going regularly to a pretty good church and hearing some good preaching. Maybe I need to get more involved with all of them despite the impracticalities involved.

I don't mean to be sarcastic, I mean really, maybe I should, although I don't see any real opportunities and I don't feel I have anything to offer.

Point is, maybe I'm not supposed to be debating these things on the internet. Maybe I shouldn't even have gotten so involved in them and learned so much about them. I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M SUPPOSED TO DO AS A WOMAN IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION I'M IN AND WITH THESE PARTICULAR INTERESTS AND ABILITIES!

Anyway, George, what you are calling humanism is just one trend of the demonic worldview that has completely overthrown this nation and the entire West in the last half century and is rapidly preparing the ground for the coming of the Antichrist. Or maybe humanism is one of the names for it, but it's not the most familiar name these days.

Please be careful who you accuse of what, because I have reason to think I'm far less "infected" by all that demonic insanity than just about anyone you are likely to meet.

This is a false distinction, George. Words do happen to MEAN things, and what they MEAN is what we are to learn. There's no magic in words themselves, but of course we have to have the correct words or we aren't going to get the correct meaning. Certainly liberals and humanists can distort the message of scripture, but that's not the same thing as struggling to understand a difficult part of scripture, and there are such difficult parts of scripture, and getting the meaning of it is the whole point.

You seem to be attacking logic and reasoning as such, but these are not God's enemies. There is such a thing as reasoning based on scripture and not on twisting scripture. You are very much in error if you are calling all uses of the mind to understand things on the basis of God's word "humanism."

That is a dangerous error you are making, George. I understand what you are trying to say but you are not saying it correctly. In fact this is a good illustration of the point: I think I understand what you MEAN even though you are not saying it right. I think you are rightly concerned with people MISreading scripture to mean something other than it means, and putting words in people's mouths, right? If not, correct me, but if so, you are overstating the case and confusing the issue.

We can count on scripture to have the right words, but human beings don't always choose the most apt words for what they are trying to say, and our job IS to find out what they MEAN. That is NOT the same thing as "what we personally get out of it," but an honest attempt to understand what the words themselves mean, not what WE mean. In the case of scripture we can trust the words even though we still may have to struggle to understand the meaning the writer intended, while with fallible human beings sometimes we have to help them find better words for what they intend to say.

How about the situation with the US Constitution? I'm sure you are one who objects to how recent Supreme Court rulings misread it, right? Well, are the words there or not? It's possible some of the words could have been better chosen since it's not scripture, but I think for the most part they are there and the SCOTUS is misreading them, reading into it their own philosophy. it's MEANING that matters, George. Does Freedom of Speech mean freedom of pornography or not? It's MEANING that matters.



SOME OF GEORGE'S POST FROM THE OTHER THREAD:

#12. Are you aware as to just how much influence Humanism has had on the Western World in the last 120 years or so? Yes? or No?

#13. Are you aware as to just how much influence Humanism has had in the United States in the last 120 years or so?: (In the fields of: Education [primary, high school, college]; Government [National, State, County, City, Town – Executive, Legislative, JUDICIARY]; Media [Print, Radio, Television, etc.]; the families; and in the churches [especially with pastors, teachers, counselors, etc.]. Yes? or No?

#14. Are you aware as to just how much influence Psychiatry & Psychology (based in Humanism) has had in the United States in the last 120 years or so?: (In the fields of: Education [primary, high school, college]; Government [National, State, County, City, Town – Executive, Legislative, JUDICIARY]; Media [Print, Radio, Television, etc.]; the families; and in the churches [especially with pastors, teachers, counselors, etc.]. Yes? or No?

I have asked a little over half the number of questions you asked, but these questions are very important because many of the “arguments’; disputes; disagreements; contentions; and wranglings that take place on this Forum are because we Christians have been “infected” with Humanism – some more than others (but none of us is exempt).

We are a nation of sophists:

SOPHIST, n. L. sophista,

1. A professor (not a college Professor) of philosophy; as the sophists of Greece.

2. A captious or fallacious reasoner.

Humanism has permeated every facet of our lives and as such it is very difficult to discern between that which is Scriptural (spiritual) and that which is Carnal (our Culture, etc.). God expects us to act on Scriptural precepts and principles, not with our own (Humanistic) logic and/or reasoning. That is why it is of the utmost importance that when we read the Scriptures we are to look for what God says (His words), and not what does God “mean”.

The same holds true for men’s words: we are not to try to figure out what someone “means” or what we personally “get out of someone’s words” – we are to read the words as they are, not what we may think they “mean”.

I am done with this subject unless someone else brings it up again.

Yours for the Lord Jesus Christ and for His Holy Word,

We are to glory in nothing of our own but only in Jesus Christ our Lord.

why do we have to keep quoting this verse for you? Do you discard it?

and of course, I did say that all is a gift from God and he receives the glory for that. Can we not be happy with the gifts given us?

Why do you ask me to repeat what others here already find objectionable?

Because you are wrongly dividing the word of truth and keep insisting on it though you are wrong.

No, I believe it.

You said it was good to BRAG about them. Scripture specifically says it's not good to brag about anything whatever; everything we have is a gift from God. You also said that but you tacked it on after saying it's OK to brag about our glory.

Now I've repeated my highly offensive point of view because you asked.

You were the first to call it bragging. I prefer as the scripture calls it to find glory in the gifts from God.

I'm trying to figure out if I should even answer you, Beth, if there's any way to say anything that won't continue this as just another bicker-fest but might actually shed some light on the situation. It may not be possible but I'll try.

I'm sure the ladies' long hair is quite attractive and admirable. I'm not arguing with their wearing it as long as it will get, I think that's great, and especially since it is done in obedience to husband and God. No problem. The scripture says it is given by nature as a glory, I am not arguing with any of that. And it's certainly a Christian thing to do to contribute part of it to people who have no hair.

But it came up in the context of people's telling me I'm at fault somehow or other for my view of what Paul really meant about the head covering. (No, George, not what I or anyone else say he means, what his actual words mean).

And it seemed to come up in a rather unfriendly spirit, a spirit of correcting me, even with some sarcasm, upbraiding and even some accusatory references to some of my own revelations of my own experiences and even confessions of my sins before I was saved.

The posts to me were all about how much at fault I am, and how I should be doing things differently, which their own practices seemed to be given to iillustrate: us good Christians, you bad. That's how I read it then and how I still read it. When they then come along and tell me how they have also been through hard times, well, I feel for them, but that doesn't change the basic atmosphere of them good, me bad, in fact now they're even gooder and me badder.

Now, in all this I'm just trying to be clear. I'm not upset, I'm not angry at anyone, I'm sure they are as exemplary Christians as they claim to be, and I'm content being a total sinner and wrong about all these things if only I knew what they are for sure, I just think I'm telling it like it is about this way they dealt with me. Although some attempt at softening the tone finally came from the other side, there hasn't been any recognition of this attitude of displaying their good points and my bad points. This is why I kept saying examination of the heart is in order. Haven't seen it yet. I hold nothing against anyone, but I am a single woman here saying some apparently very unpopular things, and they've done little but pick at me in a personal way, a whole family carrying on like this against me, and there's something a bit unChristian about it, that's all.

I would like to consider this topic ended if you don't mind.

Greetings, Connie. Just a quick note to tell you that I have gleaned much and been greatly blessed by your posts and attitude. May God be glorified.

Also, I will be praying for your situation mentioned elsewhere. Having an unsaved d-i-l in the Oneness cult weighs heavy on my heart. Take care and keep looking up.