If a Man Has Long Hair, Is It a Sin?

[Godcreatedsteve]

[FONT=&quot]Like most men, Paul associated long hair with femininity. Therefore, a man should never wear his hair long since it made him appear too effeminate. "Doth not even nature (phusis) itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him?" (1 Cor 11:14) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Paul makes precisely the same argument against long hair that he had against gay intercourse. In Romans, he writes how two men sleeping together was unnatural since it resulted in an effeminate ‘recompense that was meet.’ While in 1 Corinthians - the very same letter where he refers to homosexuals as ‘effeminates’ (malakos) - he writes how long hair was unnatural and shameful because that also makes a man effeminate. He (mistakenly) believed both produced men who seemed less masculine and so both were ‘para phusis.’ [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Those who use Paul’s argument to condemn homosexuals should ask themselves why they aren’t just as outraged at men who could use a good haircut? Why they aren’t vehemently opposed to the ‘lifestyle of shaggy-haired men’? Could it be because gay men, on average, are better groomed? Paul may have been a male chauvinist, but at least he was consistent. Which is more than we can say for those still using his letters to denounce homosexuality.[/FONT]

 

[Kristos]

I've seen some bikers with long hair who definitely don't look feminine...

I think the point is that a man shouldn't look like a woman. Long feminine hair (think 80s glam rock) would seem to violate this.

 

[Godcreatedsteve]

I've seen some bikers with long hair who definitely don't look feminine...

I think the point is that a man shouldn't look like a woman. Long feminine hair (think 80s glam rock) would seem to violate this.

So then, if you look mean and ugly, wear a leather jacket and have tattoos all over your body, long hair is OK. But otherwise, if it makes you look effeminate, it's a sin.

 

[GrizzlyMonKeH]

The spiritual/doctrinal teaching is that a man should not look like a woman, especially not on purpose.

Back then (culturally) this would imply not having long hair. Today, however, masculinity isn't really defined by hair style anymore. So, in essence, hair style no longer matters.

It's really important that we separate foundational truths from their cultural parallels.

 

[Godcreatedsteve]

So, in essence, hair style no longer matters.
.

So then, when Paul says he doesn't like two men having sex, that matters. But when the scriptures say it's wrong and shameful for a man to have long hair, it no longer matters.

 

[GrizzlyMonKeH]

So then, when Paul says he doesn't like two men having sex, that matters. But when the scriptures say it's wrong and shameful for a man to have long hair, it no longer matters.

Like I said, you're missing the difference between foundational truth and cultural truth.

 

[dlamberth]

[FONT=&quot]Like most men, Paul associated long hair with femininity. Therefore, a man should never wear his hair long since it made him appear too effeminate. "Doth not even nature (phusis) itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him?" (1 Cor 11:14) [/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

I guess this long haired man is a sinner than. Oh well.

I'm so glad to have been freed from such silliness.

.

 

[Hermeneutico]

[FONT=&quot]Like most men, Paul associated long hair with femininity. Therefore, a man should never wear his hair long since it made him appear too effeminate. "Doth not even nature (phusis) itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him?" (1 Cor 11:14) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Paul makes precisely the same argument against long hair that he had against gay intercourse. In Romans, he writes how two men sleeping together was unnatural since it resulted in an effeminate ‘recompense that was meet.’ While in 1 Corinthians - the very same letter where he refers to homosexuals as ‘effeminates’ (malakos) - he writes how long hair was unnatural and shameful because that also makes a man effeminate. He (mistakenly) believed both produced men who seemed less masculine and so both were ‘para phusis.’ [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Those who use Paul’s argument to condemn homosexuals should ask themselves why they aren’t just as outraged at men who could use a good haircut? Why they aren’t vehemently opposed to the ‘lifestyle of shaggy-haired men’? Could it be because gay men, on average, are better groomed? Paul may have been a male chauvinist, but at least he was consistent. Which is more than we can say for those still using his letters to denounce homosexuality.[/FONT]

Yes, it is a violation of Scripture for me to have long hair, and it is an abomination for men to practice homosexuality.

 

[Godcreatedsteve]

Like I said, you're missing the difference between foundational truth and cultural truth.

So then, since Jewish culture forbade gay relations, while Gentile culture didn't, that's a 'foundational truth.' But since Jewish culture accepted long hair while Gentile preferred it short, that's a 'cultural truth.' Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Godcreatedsteve]

Yes, it is a violation of Scripture for me to have long hair, and it is an abomination for men to practice homosexuality.

Since it's shameful and against nature for men to have long hair, does your church preach against 'the lifestyle of shaggy-haired men'? Are unrepentant long-haired men welcomed into your church?

 

[GrizzlyMonKeH]

So then, since Jewish culture forbade gay relations, while Gentile culture didn't, that's a 'foundational truth.' But since Jewish culture accepted long hair while Gentile preferred it short, that's a 'cultural truth.' Thanks for clearing that up.

No, you're still not understanding what I'm saying.

Foundational truth: Homosexuality is wrong.
Cultural implication: Long hair in males implies homosexuality, therefore long hair in males is bad. Today, having long hair is irrelevant because today's culture doesn't view long hair as having a connection to homosexuality.


Here's an analogy: Imagine a culture where having a tattoo means you're a murderer. God commands these people to not have tattoos. Fast forward to another culture in which tattoos do not signify murder. Murder would still be wrong, but it would now be okay to have a tattoo because the two concepts are no longer linked.

 

[Stan Ley]

Doh!

 

[Hermeneutico]

I have long hair and I don't look feminine. Also, what about men who don't have long hair but still look feminine merely because of genetics? Are they being sinful because they look feminine? Also, in 1 Corinthians 11, the Bible tells women that they should not cut their hair and they should cover their head. Would that mean that women with short hair are sinning? Would that mean that women who don't cover their heads are sinning?

Good points...

Yes, women should wear veils during church service.

I do not believe the Greek says a women cannot cut her hair, but it does need to be long..

and yes, men are wrong if they have wrong hair...

The Word of God is the Final Authority for our Faith and our PRACTICES

 

[Cuddles333]

Well, no, a man having long hair in the Bible days wasn't a sign of 'homosexuality' remember that real strong fella in the Old Testament that got duped. They tied his hands to two pillars and gouged out his eyes.

Now the pagans worshipped such goddesses as Aphrodite who they believed commanded same sex acts worship to her. That must have gave them a depraved rush to know she was liking what she was seeing them do. Yes, it became more depraved and the prohibitions of these from God to the Israelites are found in Leviticus chapters 18 and 20.

In these temples the men grew their hair long or wore long wigs. The women wore their hair cropped short. The all women religion og Adonis worship, depending on the time of year, would shave their head as a sign of mourning. So, the poeple from these pagan backrounds were an embarrassment to the church because outsiders considered them as employees of the pagan dieties. The Apostle Paul tells the church how to handle the problem in 1Corinthians 11.

The emperor Constantine was recorded as being suprised that during the destruction of all these countless temples, that he couldn't tell the 'real' men from the 'real' women.

 

[Rusticus]

If God did not want men to have long hair, He would not make men's hair grow long!

 

[Hermeneutico]

If God did not want men to have long hair, He would not make men's hair grow long!

This is the funniest theological statement I have ever heard.

 

[Hermeneutico]

But it is consistent with the theological argument that homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural. Wouldn't it mean, therefore, that short hair is unnatural and therefore immoral? Wouldn't it mean that we should be natural, and have long hair?

Actually, just the opposite. The word "shame" in the Greek in 1 Cor 11 is the same one used for homosexuals in Romans when referring to "shameful" acts. Obviously, God does associates long hair on men with effeminate behavior.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Paul was addressing customs found among male temple prostitutes in Greco-Roman culture, not hair length per se.

 

[Hermeneutico]

Paul was addressing customs found among male temple prostitutes in Greco-Roman culture, not hair length per se.

Justification and very weak historically!

 

[Rusticus]

Obviously, God does associates long hair on men with effeminate behavior.

For your statement to be true, one would need to believe that Adam's hair did not grow long before the fall, seeing that God would not have created Adam to have long hair.
And then, after the fall, Adam's hair started growing???
I do not recall any reference to this in Genesis!
Therefore God created Adam to have long hair, which would mean that God does not mind men with long hair - even though Paul might have had other ideas. (Perhaps Paul was bald, so it's probably just sour grapes on his part.)