Women's Role

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then, if I understand you correctly, the explanation for "doesn't nature teach us that if a man has long hair it is a shame to him" is not referring to nature but tradition, and not to a universal tradition, but one that was narrow both in time and place? The apostle with the ministry to the gentiles. That is your explanation?

The problem is that such a statement is not really about what nature teaches us, but what culture (certain culture v other culture) teaches us. I am unable to find anything that makes the length of a man's hair a "shame" as a matter of nature.

So no matter how dogmatic many have wanted to be about things over the centuries, it is not "evident" that Paul made a statement that was actually universal as opposed to cultural. Then why did he say that? Because the culture into which he was speaking probably considered their cultural norms to be more a matter of the way of nature than it really was. Do you think Paul would have gained any ground telling them that their culture was just an opinion when they held it as the way it was ordained by nature? That could have been almost as bad as declaring that Caesar was not a god.

Might Paul, at another time, possibly taken time to reason with those same people about how much a belief like that was not grounded in nature, but only in the established patterns of their culture? Especially if they were being confronted with new believers in their midst who were not of their culture and men had long hair. Just like he did with respect to gentiles v Jews.

If long hair on a man was a shame as a matter of nature, then the earliest men were all shames because there was a time when the ability to cut hair was either limited or non-existent. It is facts like this that make broad universal claims based on one comment into a particular culture questionable, at best.

But then some will find arguments that men have cut their hair since the days of Adam, just like they declare that all that wine consumed in the Bible was unfermented grape juice.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

The problem is that such a statement is not really about what nature teaches us, but what culture (certain culture v other culture) teaches us. I am unable to find anything that makes the length of a man's hair a "shame" as a matter of nature.

If, as it has been suggested by one or two different posts, nature refers to human nature and not nature as a whole then there is some basis here.

1. Males are larger than females suggesting a role in fighting.
2. Male skulls are thicker and better suited to fighting than female skulls, suggesting a role in fighting.
3. Male hormones predispose males to agression and fighting.
4. Statistically a human population could reproduce and grow much quicker if they lose some males in battles rather than females. Once again suggesting that the male role, in part, is battle.

Yes, Absalom had long hair, but that only proves the point. He died by getting his hair caught in the trees and was a sitting duck for David's men to kill. That death was shameful.

US doctrine on crew cuts for warriors is based on solid analysis for what works best and has nothing to do with culture. We have US citizens from every culture on this planet.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If, as it has been suggested by one or two different posts, nature refers to human nature and not nature as a whole then there is some basis here.

1. Males are larger than females suggesting a role in fighting.
2. Male skulls are thicker and better suited to fighting than female skulls, suggesting a role in fighting.
3. Male hormones predispose males to agression and fighting.
4. Statistically a human population could reproduce and grow much quicker if they lose some males in battles rather than females. Once again suggesting that the male role, in part, is battle.

Yes, Absalom had long hair, but that only proves the point. He died by getting his hair caught in the trees and was a sitting duck for David's men to kill. That death was shameful.

US doctrine on crew cuts for warriors is based on solid analysis for what works best and has nothing to do with culture. We have US citizens from every culture on this planet.

5 sentences and a list of 4 items, none of which actually address what I said. The fact that crew cuts work best for modern soldiers has nothing to do with whether it is a shame for a man to have long hair.

And rather than proving the point, the fact that Absalom died because of his long hair (indirectly) does not say anything about long hair being a shame. To say otherwise is strictly spin.