Eugene Blackgaard wrote:Ah, I see. And I suppose many men would feel silly/ashamed having hair down to their back. What I don't agree with is that it is wrongful to have hair that is a bit longer than the average man. I believe the scripture should be taken into context, the people Paul was writing to at the time had a large homosexual culture group, where the gay men would have hair down to their backs, and the gey women would have short hair to promote their homosexuality.
I disagree with the claim of that passage of scripture being a commandment. I believe it is merely advice giveb by Paul, not God's law.
Anyways, Flyah, I had another question. I know a friend who believes not all scripture applies to us (the believers). He says that Christians are wrong by applying Jeremiah 29:11 "For I know the thoughts I think towards you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace and not evil, to give you a future and a hope" to themselves. He says that scripture only applies to Jeremiah, and Christians shouldn't take this scripture as their own.
What do you think? While he is an esteemed colleuge of mine, I personally disagree with his line of thinking.
Eugene,
This really captured my attention for the apparent irony that I saw. This is not designed to condemn you but to get you thinking.
"I believe the scripture should be taken into context, the people Paul was writing to at the time had a large homosexual culture group, where the gay men would have hair down to their backs, and the gey women would have short hair to promote their homosexuality."
If that is taken as true, could you argue today that long hair would identify a man with the hippy culture? People here might have differing viewpoints on the hippies but many do not associate that movement with Christian values. If we took this passage as only necessary if it’s possible to be identified with the wrong group I'd suggest we might have a case today. This is not an expression about my beliefs regarding hair. It is an analysis on how your words should be applied.
"I disagree with the claim of that passage of scripture being a commandment. I believe it is merely advice giveb by Paul, not God's law."
This really grabbed my attention. I try to look at the Bible from the basis of 2 Timothy 3:16-17. When there is a passage that I don't understand I like to ask why God included it in the Bible as inspired. Paul wrote it but God included it. We have a history of the ancient Jewish culture and all their laws. We don't follow all those laws now. Is the same thing happening in the New Testament? Paul handing out decrees that we only look at now as preserved fact and not an affect our actions?
"Anyways, Flyah, I had another question. I know a friend who believes not all scripture applies to us (the believers). He says that Christians are wrong by applying Jeremiah 29:11 "For I know the thoughts I think towards you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace and not evil, to give you a future and a hope" to themselves. He says that scripture only applies to Jeremiah, and Christians shouldn't take this scripture as their own."
This is were I felt the strong sense of irony. God said that to Jeremiah but you believe it can apply now. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion but I don't see how we can claim what God said to Jeremiah and not what Paul said to the church. Does this make any sense? How much of the Bible do we think of as still applicable today and why? How can we discern what is and what isn't applicable?
It is my aim that this will not cause resentment but study.
In His Service,
Methodius
