Long hair of the law

[StevusMagnus]

I'm still LOL'ing about the drag queen comment.

HK, I'd seriously reconsider posting your womanly avatar on the forum. Cross-dressing is indeed a sin against nature. It seriously may be a scandal to young souls surfing the internet who happen upon it. I say this for your own sake. The evil one likes to blur the lines and I feel your avatar assists in this.

[luigi]

Highlighted Version of Haydock commentary:

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id172.html

Quote:

Ver. 3. The                            head of the woman is the man, &c. To have the head covered at public meetings, is, according to St. Paul, a mark of subjection: The man was created to be head over the woman, who was made subject to the man, being made of him,                            of his rib, and the woman made for him, not he for the woman. The man in a special manner, is the image of                            God, not only by his immortal soul, in which sense also the woman was made to God's image, and likeness, but inasmuch as God gave him a power over all creatures, and so he is called, the glory of God. For these reasons, as well as from a received custom, St. Paul tells every woman, that in prayer or prophesying in public meetings, she must have her head veiled, and covered in testimony of her subjection to man, her head, otherwise she dishonours herself, and her head. This is what he tells her, (ver. 10.) that she ought to have a power over her head,[1] that is, to have a veil or covering, as a                            mark of man's power over her: and because of the angels, that is, out of a respect to the angels there present. Some understand the priests and ministers of God, called angels, particularly in the Apocalypse. St. Paul adds, that nature[2] having given to women long hair, designed it to be as a natural veil. In fine, he appeals to them, to be judges, whether it be not unbecoming in women to pray without a veil. But he will have men to be uncovered, and not to bear such a mark of subjection, as a veil is, by which a man would dishonour his head, that is, himself, and Christ, who is his head, and who appointed him, when he created him, to be head over the woman. He looks upon it as a dishonour and a disgrace for men to nourish their hair, as women should do. He also calls God the head of Christ, that is, of Christ, as man. Lest he should seem to lessen the condition of women more than necessary, he adds, that the propagation of mankind now depends on the woman, as well as on the man, seeing every man is by the woman. (Witham)

Who is Witham in Haydock commentary?

[LaRoza]

I'm still LOL'ing about the drag queen comment.

HK, I'd seriously reconsider posting your womanly avatar on the forum. Cross-dressing is indeed a sin against nature. It seriously may be a scandal to young souls surfing the internet who happen upon it. I say this for your own sake. The evil one likes to blur the lines and I feel your avatar assists in this.

He isn't cross dressing. He is wearing tradition clothing of a certain period and a traditional wig, which he has not styled yet. It is all men's clothing.

[StevusMagnus]

LaRoza,

The basic principle is that we should help to reinforce God given gender separation and not help to blur the lines. Women with men's haircuts and wearing pants do this. Men with long locks or shaving body hair does this. I've quoted my sources. Yours are either superseded OT quotes or else refer to other times.

Like it or not, we live in the 21st century. Not 17th century France, not the 1100's, not right after the flood. And we are talking about Christian standards, not of some tribe in the Amazon. At the time of Christ women had much longer hair than men, and that's the point. I know of no time in Christendom where the Church endorsed custom was the opposite. Even so, today it remains short hair for men and long for women. It's common sense to me, but I respect that your view differs.

[WhollyRoaminCatholic]

HK, I'd seriously reconsider posting your womanly avatar on the forum. Cross-dressing is indeed a sin against nature. It seriously may be a scandal to young souls surfing the internet who happen upon it. I say this for your own sake. The evil one likes to blur the lines and I feel your avatar assists in this.

No one thinks it's cross-dressing other than you.  Maybe it's time to work on your own hang-ups rather than accusing other people of them?

[StevusMagnus]

I'm still LOL'ing about the drag queen comment.

HK, I'd seriously reconsider posting your womanly avatar on the forum. Cross-dressing is indeed a sin against nature. It seriously may be a scandal to young souls surfing the internet who happen upon it. I say this for your own sake. The evil one likes to blur the lines and I feel your avatar assists in this.

He isn't cross dressing. He is wearing tradition clothing of a certain period and a traditional wig, which he has not styled yet. It is all men's clothing.

That can't be surmised from the small black and white avatar that looks like a woman.

[LaRoza]

Haydock on Corinthians...

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id172.html

Ver. 3. The                            head of the woman is the man, &c. To have the head covered at public meetings, is, according to St. Paul, a mark of                            subjection: The man was created to be head over the woman, who was made subject to the man, being made of him,                            of his rib, and the woman made for him, not he for the woman. The man in a special manner, is the image of                            God, not only by his immortal soul, in which sense also the woman was made to God's image, and likeness, but inasmuch                            as God gave him a power over all creatures, and so he is called, the glory of God. For these reasons, as well as from a received custom, St. Paul tells every woman, that in prayer or prophesying in public meetings, she must have her head veiled, and covered in testimony of her subjection to man, her head, otherwise she dishonours herself, and her head. This is what he tells her, (ver. 10.) that she ought to have a power over her head,[1] that is, to have a veil or covering, as a                            mark of man's power over her: and because of the angels, that is, out of a respect to the angels there present. Some understand the priests and ministers of God, called angels, particularly in the Apocalypse. St. Paul adds, that nature[2] having given to women long hair, designed it to be as a natural veil. In fine, he appeals to them, to be judges, whether it be not unbecoming in women to pray without a veil. But he will have men to be uncovered, and not to bear such a mark of subjection, as a veil is, by which a man would dishonour his head, that is, himself, and Christ, who is his head, and who appointed him, when he created him, to be head over the woman. He looks upon it as a dishonour and a disgrace for men to nourish their hair, as women should do. He also calls God the head of Christ, that is, of Christ, as man. Lest he should seem to lessen the condition of women more than necessary, he adds, that the propagation of mankind now depends on the woman, as well as on the man, seeing every man is by the woman. (Witham)

That says nothing about long hair, except that men should not "nourish" their hair and treat it as women do.

My hair is long, but it is combed back and tied (for convenience, it is tied every fist width). I am not violating a single statement in that article. I keep my hair clean, that is, free of foreign matter and microorganisms, and tidy, that is, free of large knots, but nothing else.

[The_Harlequin_King]

You keep appealing to ancient irrelevant counter examples.

If men have worn their hair at or past shoulder length for all of human history up until the WWI period, and is becoming increasingly acceptable once again now.... then the "ancient irrelevant counter example" would be the short hair phenomenon of 1914-1960's or whenever.

HK, I'd seriously reconsider posting your womanly avatar on the forum. Cross-dressing is indeed a sin against nature. It seriously may be a scandal to young souls surfing the internet who happen upon it. I say this for your own sake. The evil one likes to blur the lines and I feel your avatar assists in this.

As much as you should reconsider changing that avatar of a Protestant actor rumored to be bisexual. At least my avatar is of a Catholic man whose straightness is out of the question.

But to gauge the opinion, I'll make a poll. If a substantial number of forumites confuse me for a woman, I'll concede your point.

[LaRoza]

That can't be surmised from the small black and white avatar that looks like a woman.

Are you what we call on the street a "white guy"? Asian men are different from Caucasians in some ways, facial structure and hair is one. I, to someone raised around only Asians, would look like an ape (which indeed is what the Vietnamese called Americans soldiers).

If you had more familiarity with Asians, you'd see he is perfectly masculine.

[LaRoza]

LaRoza,

The basic principle is that we should help to reinforce God given gender separation and not help to blur the lines. Women with men's haircuts and wearing pants do this. Men with long locks or shaving body hair does this. I've quoted my sources. Yours are either superseded OT quotes or else refer to other times.

Like it or not, we live in the 21st century. Not 17th century France, not the 1100's, not right after the flood. And we are talking about Christian standards, not of some tribe in the Amazon. At the time of Christ women had much longer hair than men, and that's the point. I know of no time in Christendom where the Church endorsed custom was the opposite. Even so, today it remains short hair for men and long for women. It's common sense to me, but I respect that your view differs.

I think you are stuck in the time period and place in which you are raised. The hair styles of the late 1800's to 1950's are over. Short hair on women is no longer a sign of rebellion and long hair on men is neither.

Yes, your personal views may not change, and they don't have to, but society has changed.