Long hair of the law

[WhollyRoaminCatholic]

A long time ago, in a land far away, I too used to have long hair.  Just a bit below my waist, in fact.

Did people think you were a woman?  I mean, you know how to use a springform pan.

I'm not saying that I think you're a Texicana.  I know how to use a springform pan too.  (Apparently Satori is the only one that doesn't.  ;))  But to follow Stevus's logic, you're probably some cross dressing poof.

[LaRoza]

Where, exactly, does it say that men should wear trousers?

Modern world ettiquite books. Historically, trousers were not for men.

I may be mistaken but, I don't believe St. Paul wore them.  Perhaps kilts would be more proper?

Kilts, as we know them, are quite modern as well. I forget the name of what St. Paul and the others would have worn, but it is similiar to what Arabs typically wear now.

Did our Lord, and the Apostles, have long hair? 

Our Lord, yes (well, I do not know exactly how long, but it was longer than Stevus's ideal). The apostles, some of them. St. Paul may have had short hair due to his culture as well as any Roman.

[LaRoza]

I mean to say you're mentality is stuck in the 70's. The "let it be" natural look. I'm not stuck in any time period. I simply agree with St. Paul that men's hair should be shorter than womens.

That is not my attitude. I'd have dreads if it were.

My attitude is against vanity, and this means not altering my appearance unless it is needed.

St. Paul did not say that, by the way, he said there was a difference in men's and women's hair and men should not nourish their hair like women.

[StevusMagnus]

I have a feeling that "nourish" in this case means "grow." But can anybody who knows Latin confirm this?

Bingo..

[StevusMagnus]

Where, exactly, does it say that men should wear trousers?
I may be mistaken but, I don't believe St. Paul wore them.  Perhaps kilts would be more proper?

Do you live in the time of Our Lord or in Scotland?

Did our Lord, and the Apostles, have long hair?  I can't be sure, since I wasn't there  but, from the paintings, and other art, that I've seen, it appears so.

Long by today's standards. Not by their own.

[LaRoza]

I have a feeling that "nourish" in this case means "grow." But can anybody who knows Latin confirm this?

Bingo..

nutrio -ire and nutrior -iri dep. [to suckle , nourish, bring up; to make good, support, sustain].

It means more than "to grow", it means "to nourish". If I were to preen and do things to my hair beyond what is needed, it would be against St. Paul.

[StevusMagnus]

I mean to say you're mentality is stuck in the 70's. The "let it be" natural look. I'm not stuck in any time period. I simply agree with St. Paul that men's hair should be shorter than womens.

That is not my attitude. I'd have dreads if it were.

People wore long hair in the 70's other than dreads.

My attitude is against vanity, and this means not altering my appearance unless it is needed.

I'm against vanity too. But being against vanity doesn't necessarily = never shave or cut your hair.

St. Paul did not say that, by the way, he said there was a difference in men's and women's hair and men should not nourish their hair like women.

We will have to simply agree to disagree here.

[The_Harlequin_King]

Actually, there's some chance that they know each other (or know of each other).  Both Stevus and THK are Army JAGs (albeit THK is still in school) in Texas. 

But they are in opposite worlds.

I work for JAG as a paralegal, but I'm not a JAG (though if I survive law school, I will be a JAG in the future). Stevus and I actually live fairly close (he's in Houston, I'm in San Antonio) but we haven't met in person.... yet. That will, I am sure, change in the future.

Though Stevus and I butt heads fairly often, though, I like to think we have more in common than not. At least, the basic tenets of the traditional Faith oughta count for 99% of everything, right?

Kilts, as we know them, are quite modern as well.

That is actually true. Kilts were part of the neo-medievalist romanticism of the Victorian period. Their furthest use is actually probably the Jacobite Wars of 1715 and 1745. William Wallace probably did not wear a kilt; not as we know it, anyway.

St. Paul may have had short hair due to his culture as well as any Roman.

Paul was maybe the only Roman citizen of all the Apostles. He was the most obligated to conform to Roman standards. The others? Not so much.

Anyway, the poll is up. Have fun.

[StevusMagnus]

If I dressed up just like he is, I'd would not be mistaken for a cross dresser at all by you. The only difference would be racial qualities.

...and the beard...

[LaRoza]

People wore long hair in the 70's other than dreads.

Yes, they also had short hair. Not everyone was a hippy.

I'm against vanity too. But being against vanity doesn't necessarily = never shave or cut your hair.

No, it doesn't necessarily mean that, but for me, it does. I need a reason to cut.

We will have to simply agree to disagree here.

I had always admitted I do not see short hair as wrong, so there is nothing with which to disagree. All that can change is that you can accept it is not an eternal truth, your personal opinion.