Author Topic: Neo-Cath Idiots Promotes Long Hair on Men (Read 3613 times)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #30 on:** December 18, 2010, 11:05:03 PM »

Quote from: Deliveringit1

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Quote from: Deliveringit1
I don't see the problem with a man having long hair. God has long hair. God rewarded Sampson with the gift of super strength as long as Sampson kept his hair long. Maybe when Saint Paul refers to long hair not being on a man, then Saint Paul is speaking of really really long hair.

If you want people to agree with you that men having long hair is ok then you're on the wrong forum. CAF sees no problem with long hair on men if that's the kind of forum you are looking for. And you saying that God has long hair is a weak analogy. Was any man really able to cut their hair back then?

Well lets see,...did men back then have swords and knives? The answer is that they did indeed. Also, wasn't Jesus a carpenter who had many tools at his disposal? The answer is yes indeed. Obviously if Jesus(who is God) wanted to cut his hair then he could have done so at any time right? The answer is yes indeed. Lastly, the Shroud of Turin is evidence that Jesus kept his hair long.

But not long like a woman's.

Deliveringit1 · « **Reply #31 on:** December 18, 2010, 11:19:51 PM »

Telephorus, agreed. Not long like a woman.

Which is why I think Saint Paul was speaking of really long hair when he said that a man should not have long hair.

As you said before, "the main thing is that it not be effeminate."

umblehay anmay · « **Reply #32 on:** December 18, 2010, 11:23:39 PM »

I'll handle this little problem!!!!

Telesphorus · « **Reply #33 on:** December 18, 2010, 11:31:03 PM »

Quote from: Deliveringit1

Telephorus, agreed. Not long like a woman.

Which is why I think Saint Paul was speaking of really long hair when he said that a man should not have long hair.

As you said before, "the main thing is that it not be effeminate."

Another thing to consider is what is the norm in the society. For that reason, long hair that might have been common in past times might be too long today.

Deliveringit1 · « **Reply #34 on:** December 19, 2010, 12:23:52 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Another thing to consider is what is the norm in the society. For that reason, long hair that might have been common in past times might be too long today.

the "norm" in society would be a subjective conclusion and therefore meaningless. All that matters is Objective Truth which is from God.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #35 on:** December 19, 2010, 06:34:14 AM »

Quote from: Deliveringit1

the "norm" in society would be a subjective conclusion and therefore meaningless.

What social norms are is not at all subjective. They are objective. If everyone in town has short hair and one man wears his hair longer to "express" himself he violating the norms of the town.

It's part of moral theology that you have to take into account what customs are.

In one time hair that would be considered normal for a man would be considered far too long and effeminate in another time.

That's not to say there aren't standards that do not depend on what society practices, of course there are such standards. But social standards also can affect what is correct and what is incorrect.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #36 on:** December 19, 2010, 08:29:37 AM »

Quote from: umblehay anmay

I'll handle this little problem!!!!

MaterLaeta · « **Reply #37 on:** December 19, 2010, 08:45:38 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Deliveringit1
the "norm" in society would be a subjective conclusion and therefore meaningless.

What social norms are is not at all subjective. They are objective. If everyone in town has short hair and one man wears his hair longer to "express" himself he violating the norms of the town.

It's part of moral theology that you have to take into account what customs are.

In one time hair that would be considered normal for a man would be considered far too long and effeminate in another time.

That's not to say there aren't standards that do not depend on what society practices, of course there are such standards. But social standards also can affect what is correct and what is incorrect.

:sign-thread-hijacked:

Just a temporary side note: How does this argument of custom NOT apply to pants? I have seen enough pants/skirts thread to know it gets trotted out, but no one accepts this.

You can not apply a standard in one discussion but not another.

BTW - I AM NOT pro-pants. I am trying to get rid of mine & find all the skirts possible!

If I can't get a good answer to this, and it becomes it's own topic, I will start another thread.

clare · « **Reply #38 on:** December 19, 2010, 10:04:16 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

(Mistyped. I meant to say "idiot". I can no longer change the title.)

I feel like I'm back at FE!

Quote
Personally, I look forward to the day when most men (other than the clergy, for the most part, who hopefully will mostly be tonsured) will once again wear long hair as well as stockings.

Our long pants are not only barbaric, they are an odious hold over from the French revolution. The stubby little jackets we get to wear with them remind one perpetually of Victorian mill towns. The best analogy for a tie is a noose.

It is obvious to any observer that the shorter hair became in the west, the less effective the west became overall. Just as once the British Army switched from red to khaki, it began to lose.

The Spanish kept their empire for all the centuries of long hair. In contrast, the buzz cut Germans' African "empire" didn't last three generations, and when it was toppled by a few local levies and an officer with a swagger stick, had only a few unprofitable farms to show for the effort.

Sampson not only had the jawbone of an ***, he had locks. To restore all things in Christ!

I'm I the only person who thinks the quoted post might actually be ironic??

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #39 on:** December 19, 2010, 10:06:22 AM »

Normally I would, Clare.

Shockingly, though, I encountered posters on FE who spouted these views and were serious!

clare · « **Reply #40 on:** December 19, 2010, 10:13:13 AM »

That posting, though, is dripping with irony!

Telesphorus · « **Reply #41 on:** December 19, 2010, 10:14:36 AM »

Quote from: MaterLaeta

Just a temporary side note: How does this argument of custom NOT apply to pants?

Because the social norms that support women wearing pants are inspired by evil. Feminism. Women wearing pants in western society (other than in the course of certain kinds of physical labor that pants might serve a utilitarian purpose) are either inspired by feminism or vanity, in the latter case, women almost always wear immodest pants.

Quote

I have seen enough pants/skirts thread to know it gets trotted out, but no one accepts this.

You can not apply a standard in one discussion but not another.

I was never applying two standards. For example, there are parts of the world where women have traditionally worn pants. I never said I was against that, provided they were modest.

Quote

BTW - I AM NOT pro-pants. I am trying to get rid of mine & find all the skirts possible!

If I can't get a good answer to this, and it becomes it's own topic, I will start another thread.

I've hijacked the thread? Silly for you to say that.

There are absolute standards that don't depend on society, and their are also social standards as well.

The absolute standards always apply.

Cheryl · « **Reply #42 on:** December 19, 2010, 10:57:22 AM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Quote from: umblehay anmay
I'll handle this little problem!!!!

The bad thing is that I remember which film short this still photo is from. I can still hear Alfalfa singing the Barber of Seville. :smile: