A Christian must have a full beard

[Tony B]

I'm not a Hellenic Pagan, so I wouldn't be the one to ask. But in general Pagan cultures don't sex shame. That's a very puritanical Christian thing that, because of their cultural hegemony, has become understood as normal somehow. Suits me fine as an asexual prude who thinks fornication is utterly disgusting.

Christianity doesn't 'sex shame', it just believes in sex within marriage. God did create the orgasm after all.

 

[Kathryn]

I'm not a Hellenic Pagan, so I wouldn't be the one to ask. But in general Pagan cultures don't sex shame. That's a very puritanical Christian thing that, because of their cultural hegemony, has become understood as normal somehow. Suits me fine as an asexual prude who thinks fornication is utterly disgusting.

Ugh, I do too, and I am not even asexual! But I do also believe that sex can be beautiful and meaningful.

 

[Quintessence]

Christianity doesn't 'sex shame', it just believes in sex within marriage. God did create the orgasm after all.

Some traditions do, hence I put that word "puritanical" in front of Christianity as a qualifier. I'm hardly an expert on it - scholars that examine the intersection of religion and sexuality could tell you about it in vastly more detail than I. But here's an example of what I am talking about if you are not familiar:

How the ‘extreme abstinence’ of the purity movement created a sense of shame in evangelical women

Evangelicals who were taught as children that Christians abstain from sex until marriage are coming out and revealing the dark side of the so-called ‘purity movement.’

theconversation.com

 

[Koldo]

Because it is clearly stated doesn't refute that it's a cultural reference, neither does quoting different versions of the Bible. Paul was addressing a Church, so it definitely needs to be seen in the context of the time and culture in that Church.

I quoted multiple versions to make it clear that Paul was speaking of nature. There is absolutely no ground to speak of it as being simply a cultural reference.

Good, because nowhere in scripture is it written that it's a sin.

It doesn't have to be a sin.

So you think everyone should follow every cultural reference and difference in the Bible? like slavery? or other such anachronisms? How do you like;

"The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."

Corinthians 14: 34-35

Do we stick to that now? no, it's a cultural reference that was prevalent at the time, nor is it a sin for women to speak in Churches, so we use our God given discernment to act in a way that Jesus will approve of, because he had female disciples.

There is absolutely no reason, once again, to presume that this is a mere cultural reference. It is clearly stated that women should not speak in church. And that's it. That's what a Christian should abide by if they intend to be true to their religion.

As for what I personally think that people should follow: Christianity should be ditched as a whole. People keep trying to save it by cherry picking the parts they like.

It would matter because the roles of men and women are clearly defined in the Bible.

“A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God"
Deuteronomy 2:5

That seems pretty clear to me.

It is very clear, but there is a massive problem. If Deuteronomy 22:5 remains applicable, what about the rest of Deuteronomy 22? Read it all to refresh your memory before replying.There is a very strong argument to be made that Old Testament laws are not applicable unless specifically stated otherwise in the New Testament, given how Paul dealt with circumcision and dietary laws.

 

[blü 2]

Hell of a sweeping statement there buddy, none of us claim to be perfect, only one man ticked that box, however, most of us do try to follow the laws we are subject to. As it happens selling our daughters isn't one of them, it's probably best you understand the Bible and what Christians are required to do before making statements like that. We are not subject to Old Testament customs and laws which were intended for the Israelites. We are subject to the moral law (Ten commandments for instance) and not rules around hair cuts, beards, selling daughters or anything else.

Yes, I've already apologized for confusing the Christian God with either the God of the Tanakh or the God of the NT ─ which is to say, as to the former, (and regardless of Matthew 5:

17 “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. 18 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished"),​

Paul abandoned the covenant of circumcision, and as for the God of the NT, in the 4th century CE [he] was made triune.

 

[Viker]

I believe Christians cannot look the way they want,
but the way God wants them to.
I will mention Bible verses to prove this.

How a male Christian must look like:
a full beard,
no bald head,
do not shorten the sides of the hair on the head or beard,
no long hair,
no tattoos,
only decent clothes,
men's clothing only.

How a female Christian must look like:
no beard,
no bald head,
long hair,
no tattoos,
only decent clothes,
women's clothing only,
she must cover herself, that means,
no tight clothing,
and no nudity.

Sources: Leviticus 19:27, 21:25; 1Corinthians 11:14-15,

Of course, there can be natural exceptions,
for example, someone cannot have a beard or hair on their head.
Such a person is excused.

So if a Christian is disabled or has a broken nose they shouldn't be permitted in church?

 

[InChrist]

Quite right, my apologies. I was thinking the Christian God was the God of the Tanakh, but of course at the same time I knew that Paul had thrown out the covenant of circumcision with that God. And the Christian God, a few centuries later, became triune too, a totally different concept to either the God of the Tanakh or the God of the NT.

Paul did not change the covenant in regard to circumcision. The covenant was for the nation of Israel/ Jewish males… not a requirement for the church/those born again to new life in Christ.
There is no “Christian” God, but only One God; Creator of heaven and earth. The God who has revealed more about Himself to humanity throughout history. First to Adam and Eve, Moses, Abraham, the people, kings and prophets of Israel, and finally through the Son who came to earth in human form and the apostles He interacted with and commissioned to spread the gospel/good news. The God of the Tanakh is the same God of the NT, in my perspective. The NT sheds further light and insight on the OT and God Himself.




“You Moreover, if God is a single Being, then why is the plural Hebrew noun elohim (literally "gods") used for God repeatedly? In fact, this plural noun is in the center of Israel's famous confession of the oneness of God! The Shemadeclares, "Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut 6:4; Mk 12:29). In the Hebrew it reads, "Jehovah our elohim [gods] is one [echad] Jehovah." The Hebrew word echadallows for a unity of more than one. For example, it is used in Genesis:2:24
where man and woman become one flesh; in Exodus:36:13
when the various parts "became onetabernacle"; in 2 Samuel:2:25
when many soldiers "became one troop"; and elsewhere.

Nor is the word elohim the only way in which God's plurality is presented. For example: Psalm:149:2
, "Let Israel rejoice in him that made him" (literally "makers"); Ecclesiastes:12:1
, "Remember now thy Creator (lit. "creators"); and Isaiah:54:5
, "For thy Maker is thine husband (lit. "makers, husbands"). Unitarianism has no explanation for this consistent presentation of God's plurality all through the Old Testament. Although the word "trinity" does not occur in the Bible, the concept is clearly there, providing the unity and diversity which makes possible the love, fellowship and communion within the Godhead. Truly the trinitarian God is love—and He alone.”

The Trinity

Many Christians are at a loss to understand, much less to defend, the "Trinity." Critics argue that that word is not even found in the Bible. To deal with that issue, we must begin with God,

www.thebereancall.org

 

[Tony B]

Some traditions do, hence I put that word "puritanical" in front of Christianity as a qualifier. I'm hardly an expert on it - scholars that examine the intersection of religion and sexuality could tell you about it in vastly more detail than I. But here's an example of what I am talking about if you are not familiar:

How the ‘extreme abstinence’ of the purity movement created a sense of shame in evangelical women

Evangelicals who were taught as children that Christians abstain from sex until marriage are coming out and revealing the dark side of the so-called ‘purity movement.’

theconversation.com

Some random article on the internet doesn't change what scripture says.

 

[Tony B]

I quoted multiple versions to make it clear that Paul was speaking of nature. There is absolutely no ground to speak of it as being simply a cultural reference.

I know what you claimed, but claiming it doesn't make it so.

It doesn't have to be a sin.

Well to be a transgression in God's eyes it has to be written in law applicable to Christians, it isn't, I've already explained this point, if you completely ignore what I'm saying then don't bother replying.

There is absolutely no reason, once again, to presume that this is a mere cultural reference. It is clearly stated that women should not speak in church. And that's it. That's what a Christian should abide by if they intend to be true to their religion.

Again, I've already debunked this stupidity with the examples of slavery etc.

As for what I personally think that people should follow: Christianity should be ditched as a whole. People keep trying to save it by cherry picking the parts they like.

It doesn't need saving, it stands on it's own, you argue dishonestly so you're not really the best person to listen to about Christianity.

It is very clear, but there is a massive problem. If Deuteronomy 22:5 remains applicable, what about the rest of Deuteronomy 22? Read it all to refresh your memory before replying.There is a very strong argument to be made that Old Testament laws are not applicable unless specifically stated otherwise in the New Testament, given how Paul dealt with circumcision and dietary laws.

There is no argument if you understand the Bible and the wisdom within it. The Bible has to be studied and understood, it would appear nuance is beyond your comprehension. In the whole of the Bible it is very clear how God created man and woman and what their roles are, what is good, and what is not in this context. You clearly don't understand the difference between the ceremonial, civil and moral laws, and how the New Testament ended some of them.

 

[The Hammer]

Some random article on the internet doesn't change what scripture says.

Yeah only the human men that wrote it change what scripture says. (Translation, after translation, after edit, after translation, after transcription, after translation).

 

[Tony B]

Yes, I've already apologized for confusing the Christian God with either the God of the Tanakh or the God of the NT ─ which is to say, as to the former, (and regardless of Matthew 5:

17 “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. 18 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished"),​

Paul abandoned the covenant of circumcision, and for the God of the NT, in the 4th century CE [he] was made triune.

No, not really...

What does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the law, but did not abolish it? | GotQuestions.org

What does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the law, but did not abolish it? Are followers of Jesus today under the authority of the Law, or free from the Law?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[Koldo]

I know what you claimed, but claiming it doesn't make it so.

It is literally written. Claiming doesn't make it so, but it is written so.

Well to be a transgression in God's eyes it has to be written in law applicable to Christians, it isn't, I've already explained this point, if you completely ignore what I'm saying then don't bother replying.

Ha. You merely claimed so, but provided absolutely no substantion. It is curious that you accuse me of merely claiming things while you are the one guilty of doing so.

Again, I've already debunked this stupidity with the examples of slavery etc.

Once again, only claiming...

It doesn't need saving, it stands on it's own, you argue dishonestly so you're not really the best person to listen to about Christianity.

It doesn't stand on it's own, otherwise the cherry picking wouldn't be so blatant as exemplified on this topic.

There is no argument if you understand the Bible and the wisdom within it. The Bible has to be studied and understood, it would appear nuance is beyond your comprehension. In the whole of the Bible it is very clear how God created man and woman and what their roles are, what is good, and what is not in this context. You clearly don't understand the difference between the ceremonial, civil and moral laws, and how the New Testament ended some of them.

Then if you possess proper knowledge and understanding you wouldn't have any issues on arguing that Deuteronomy 22 is only partially applicable nowadays rather than fully. I won't hold my breath though.

 

[Tony B]

Yeah only the human men that wrote it change what scripture says. (Translation, after translation, after edit, after translation, after transcription, after translation).

The men who wrote it were divinely inspired, very obviously, Voddie Baucham explains the incredible feat of the Bible just for you, 3 languages, 3 different continents, 40+ authors, decades apart, thousands of copies, barely a typo's difference between all of them.

Why you can believe the Bible - Voddie Baucham

 

[Tony B]

It is literally written. Claiming doesn't make it so, but it is written so.

To a church in a specific time, a cultural reference not written into the law for Christians, this isn't difficult for most people to understand, it's why it's not followed in Christianity to this day. It's the same reason we don't keep slaves anymore, or did you forget Christians were at the forefront of abolishing slavery?

Ha. You merely claimed so, but provided absolutely no substantion. It is curious that you accuse me of merely claiming things while you are the one guilty of doing so.



Once again, only claiming...



It doesn't stand on it's own, otherwise the cherry picking wouldn't be so blatant as exemplified on this topic.



Then if you possess proper knowledge and understanding you wouldn't have any issues on arguing that Deuteronomy 22 is only partially applicable nowadays rather than fully. I won't hold my breath though.

I've already explained it, and done it again above, I've no desire to continue your game of pigeon chess, believe what you want, it might be a good idea to understand why no Christian Church enforces certain verses such as this one, maybe you should read the Bible and understand it to work out why.

 

[Koldo]

To a church in a specific time, a cultural reference not written into the law for Christians, this isn't difficult for most people to understand, it's why it's not followed in Christianity to this day.

False. Once again, the verse specifically refers to the nature of things. You can not brush this off as a cultural reference and expect anyone to accept that just because you say so. The bible directly contradicts your interpretation.

It's the same reason we don't keep slaves anymore, or did you forget Christians were at the forefront of abolishing slavery?

Do the words Dum Diversas ring any bells? If not, you should google it to see the wonders of Christianity.... supporting slavery.

I've already explained it, and done it again above, I've no desire to continue your game of pigeon chess, believe what you want, it might be a good idea to understand why no Christian Church enforces certain verses such as this one, maybe you should read the Bible and understand it to work out why.

I fully understand why Christian Churches generally don't enforce certain verses and stated so already: cherry picking and convenience.

 

[The Hammer]

The men who wrote it were divinely inspired, very obviously,

If it *is* so obvious. Please prove it to me. Thanks a bunch.

 

[blü 2]

Paul did not change the covenant in regard to circumcision. The covenant was for the nation of Israel/ Jewish males… not a requirement for the church/those born again to new life in Christ.

Jesus was a Jew. His God was the Jewish god. Jesus was circumcised ie Jesus was within the Jewish God's covenant (explicitly in Luke 2:21, implicitly in Mark, and thus the synoptics. The author of John however is keen to distinguish Christians from Jews, so that case is a tad less certain).

There is no “Christian” God, but only One God; Creator of heaven and earth.

The moment Paul abandoned God's covenant with the Jews by abolishing the requirement of circumcision, Paul was no longer worshiping the God of the Tanakh. Instead he had created the God of the NT, who kept some resemblance to the God of the Tanakh, and (in Paul and in John but not in the synoptics) acquired some resemblance to the God of the Gnostics too.

And if there's one thing none of the five NT versions of Jesus are, it's being God or any part of the triune God. The Jesus of Mark and the Jesus of Matthew did NOT say, "Me, me, why have I forsaken me?" and none of the gospel Jesuses said "If it be my will, let this cup pass from me." Instead, all five versions state that they're NOT God and never claim to be God ─ I set out their express disclaimers in an earlier post here >Jesus Failed Right?<.

So Jesus didn't become God, and the Christian God didn't become triune, until, after two or three centuries of church politicking to elevate Jesus to God status, the triune God was accepted in the 4th century.

The triune God is NOT the god of the NT, and even less is [he] the God of the Tanakh.

On top of it all (or, underneath it all, if you prefer), the triune concept is incoherent. I set out some of the problems here >Creation vs. Evolution<.

 

[YoursTrue]

And as for following the bible, Christians think the sabbath is Sunday. If you want to know what the Sabbath really is, ask your Jewish friends.

I don't think what you're saying is accurate about all those called Christians. Maybe another time to go over this.

 

[YoursTrue]

Jesus was a Jew. His God was the Jewish god. Jesus was circumcised ie Jesus was within the Jewish God's covenant (explicitly in Luke 2:21, implicitly in Mark, and thus the synoptics. The author of John however is keen to distinguish Christians from Jews, so that case is a tad less certain).

The moment Paul abandoned God's covenant with the Jews by abolishing the requirement of circumcision, Paul was no longer worshiping the God of the Tanakh. Instead he had created the God of the NT, who kept some resemblance to the God of the Tanakh, and (in Paul and in John but not in the synoptics) acquired some resemblance to the God of the Gnostics too.

And if there's one thing none of the five NT versions of Jesus are, it's being God or any part of the triune God. The Jesus of Mark and the Jesus of Matthew did NOT say, "Me, me, why have I forsaken me?" and none of the gospel Jesuses said "If it be my will, let this cup pass from me." Instead, all five versions state that they're NOT God and never claim to be God ─ I set out their express disclaimers in an earlier post here >Jesus Failed Right?<.

So Jesus didn't become God, and the Christian God didn't become triune, until, after two or three centuries of church politicking to elevate Jesus to God status, the triune God was accepted in the 4th century.

The triune God is NOT the god of the NT, and even less is [he] the God of the Tanakh.

On top of it all (or, underneath it all, if you prefer), the triune concept is incoherent. I set out some of the problems here >Creation vs. Evolution<.

The God of Jesus was/is the Almighty God. The true God, as Jesus understood. So did his faithful followers. But you take care and hope you are well.

 

[blü 2]

The God of Jesus was/is the Almighty God. The true God, as Jesus understood. So did his faithful followers. But you take care and hope you are well.

As you know, God never appears, never says, never does, and the only manner in which [he]'s known to exist is as a concept, notion, thing imagined, in an individual brain.