18 Jul 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasA church wouldn't be endorsing a woman with spiritual leadership? (This was the next-to-last question.)
Feigned indignation... You are hilarious. The questions you asked, save the last one, addressed whether or not I would attend a church with such people among the congregation, not whether the church 'endorsed' such sins. Yes, I would attend a church with other sinners like myself sitting next to me in the pews. Definitely.
What if your male pastor had long hair? Would you discontinue going?
What if your pastor married two people, one of whom was divorced on non-adulterous grounds?
Would you discontinue going?
Nemesio
18 Jul 07
3 edits
So, here we are, eight pages into the thread, and unless I've overlooked it, nobody has yet mentioned the elephant in the room.
If Paul's words do in fact indicate that men wearing long hair is unnatural, perhaps even sinful, why is it that Jesus himself is nearly universally depicted as having long hair?
I have never in all my years seen a crucifix with Jesus sporting a haircut like Jerry Falwell. I hereby issue a challenge to anybody here to find on the Internet a non-parody image of a non-black Jesus with hair trimmed above the ears.
18 Jul 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHe was a Nazarene like Sampson.
So, here we are, eight pages into the thread, and unless I've overlooked it, nobody has yet mentioned the elephant in the room.
If Paul's words do in fact indicate that men wearing long hair is unnatural, perhaps even sinful, why is it that Jesus himself is nearly universally depicted as having long hair?
I have never in all my years seen a c ...[text shortened]... find on the Internet a non-parody image of a non-black Jesus with hair trimmed above the ears.
18 Jul 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI hereby issue a challenge to anybody here to find on the Internet a non-parody image of a non-black Jesus with hair trimmed above the ears.
So, here we are, eight pages into the thread, and unless I've overlooked it, nobody has yet mentioned the elephant in the room.
If Paul's words do in fact indicate that men wearing long hair is unnatural, perhaps even sinful, why is it that Jesus himself is nearly universally depicted as having long hair?
I have never in all my years seen a c ...[text shortened]... find on the Internet a non-parody image of a non-black Jesus with hair trimmed above the ears.
Salvador Dali's, "Crucifixion." Jesus is potrayed crucified upon an unfolded tesseract (with short hair).
18 Jul 07
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasOK, even if I were to grant that the hair length itself is borderline short, I think it's clear that Dali's representation isn't intended to be realistic.
Pretty close...
This image, on the other hand, is:
http://www.mormonwiki.com/wiki/images/d/d8/Jesus_Christ.jpg
So, can you find an image from a realistic artist in which Jesus has a haircut like this:
http://spmedia.canada.com/gallery/Posted/0515falwell.jpg
18 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHow about Dali's, "Christ of Saint John of the Cross" ?
OK, even if I were to grant that the hair length itself is borderline short, I think it's clear that Dali's representation isn't intended to be realistic.
This image, on the other hand, is:
http://www.mormonwiki.com/wiki/images/d/d8/Jesus_Christ.jpg
So, can you find an image from a realistic artist in which Jesus has a haircut like this:
http://spmedia.canada.com/gallery/Posted/0515falwell.jpg
BTW, why wouldn't Dali's representation be intended to be realistic? If he went to the trouble of nailing Jesus to a tesseract, a four-dimensional geometric hypercube, then why wouldn't he want to get the hair right?
19 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioHmm?
A church wouldn't be endorsing a woman with spiritual leadership? (This was the next-to-last question.)
What if your male pastor had long hair? Would you discontinue going?
What if your pastor married two people, one of whom was divorced on non-adulterous grounds?
Would you discontinue going?
Nemesio
19 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioWhen Paul refers to the "nature" of men and women it can be interpreted in two ways. The first is what is the "nature" of men and women based upon how a paricular society views it and/or how God intended it. I would say that Paul is talking about how the society in which he lived viewed the nature of men and women.
Well, that's exactly the opposite of what St Paul says, so I don't know how you can conclude that.
He refers to the nature of man and woman. He says that woman needs to attend to it 'because of
the angels[/i]. He says that if someone is inclined to disagree, they will not be accepted in the
church of God.
But, let's say you're right in spite o and causes less 'stumbling,' why can't the views on its
sinfulness change?
Nemesio
19 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioOk, so lest say that there are two people who are not married and are heterosexual and wish to fornicate or have sex outside of marriage who love each other. Would they be in sin?
This belies the commitment clause (#2) I discussed, so your example is moot.
Nemesio
19 Jul 07
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioI think he raised some good points worth considering. I have never claimed to have all the answers, rather, I simply believe that I am in tune with the source of truth. Therefore, it is up to me to incline my ear and submit my will to what I believe is God's inspired will. In large part, however, I think it has mostly to do with the condition of my heart. Do I have an agenda for things I want to line up with God's word or am I do I wish to line up with God's will whether or not my own views/agenda's become in conflict with God's will? I think this a struggle for all believers. Our sin nature is self serving as where God's nature is holy and not self serving. If we are, therefore, to walk in the light of such holiness we MUST take up the cross and put those self serving agenda's and nail them to the cross for the better good of society and our own being even if it means my sexual inclinations and/or hair styles etc, etc, must be submitted to the will of my God.
Well, don't you think that epiphineas' viewpoint is a better one, then? I mean, he probably doesn't
like the idea of having to follow the laws on hairstyle, but he claims he does (and presumably insists
that his wife and children do or will, as well as the friends with whom he consorts and so forth).
I mean, you have the 'Word of God' that says explicitl of God' is to be viewed as a way of discerning
the 'will of God.'
Nemesio
I think all three of us agree on some things, however. One of the most important I think is that if there be Godly inspiried laws that such laws are based in love. For epiphneas this means that Paul was trying to mantain order within the church and family structure, for me it means that Paul was trying to avoid contentions within the church that might lead some who were "weak" in the faith to leave the faith and for you the teaching is simply Paul misguided interpretation of the natural order of things in general. He may have ment well but his teachings were not the inspired will of God necessarily.
19 Jul 07
5 edits
Originally posted by NemesioI think the issue of concern for me is that both the Mosaic law and the Pauline letters refer to it as an abomination and when Christ talked about sexual relations he deferred to the Mosaic law in terms of the way God willed men and women to conduct themselves sexually within the confined of marriage. In addition, however, there is the innate voice from within that stears us in terms of right/wrong. This voice also calls out to me as does the sriptures that homosexual sex is sinful. It is the same voice that has cried out to me when I engaged in other sinful practices including sex outside the confines of marriage. Therefore, I can go against this inner voice at my own peril.
But, let's say you're right in spite of the text. Why can't homosexuality be viewed that way? Now
that homosexuality is more widely accepted and causes less 'stumbling,' why can't the views on its
sinfulness change?
Nemesio[/b]
Conversely, when talking about hair styles and wearing hats this inner voice is silent and nothing is said of it except briefly in the Pauline letters. This is why the teaching is suspect in terms of the literalness that one may wish to adhere to it. As I said before, interpretation is needed for all manner of study. To be 100% literal in any academic endevour would mean that one would only hold raw data without any chance of interpreting it as having any meaning as a collective whole and when looking at the Bible as a collective whole as well as the inner voice God has given me to discern right from wrong I have made my interpretation just as you are free to make yours. In turn, we will both answer to God as a result of our choices.