Can men with man buns be saved?
- Thread starter Josho
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Whew! Thank You! I was beginning to worry that I may not be sexually normal as God made me! I wouldn't want anyone to think that I was perverse and warped!
quietthinker
Well-Known Member
LOL....as per the category of many excepting the deviant. (chances are, even the deviant desires to be perceived as normal). Such is the convoluted nature of sin.
I am sure that when God came as a man, it would be the image of the perfect man! I've seen those pictures of Jesus! Long hair, scraggly beard, and lily-white Western European skin!
All I have to do is grow a beard and long hair and I will be the picture of Perfection!
Don't hate me because I am White! Don't be a heterophobe because I am like Jesus! Use good Biblical judgement!
I am sure that when God came as a man, it would be the image of the perfect man! I've seen those pictures of Jesus! Long hair, scraggly beard, and lily-white Western European skin!
All I have to do is grow a beard and long hair and I will be the picture of Perfection!
Don't hate me because I am White! Don't be a heterophobe because I am like Jesus! Use good Biblical judgement!
And then tie a man bun.
Now, now! Cough up that on scene photo of Jesus with a man-bun beard!And then tie a man bun.
I can see Jesus now... saying "Hello" to a passerby while working:
Well... I guess that I can't see Jesus this way now that I have a picture!
Last edited:
It is interesting how hair works for men and women in different ways.
Displaying lots of hair is probably a natural sign of health and the prospect of being a partner and good mother.
For men having lots of hair is probably a sign of being frivolous and not serious enough.
Being part of an army is submission and the first thing in training is to lose all your hair.
Hair is probably a sign of individuality, which women must display to cope with so many children and get by every-day alone.
A man tends to have become part of the big group, conform to its rules and work for the team alone, above anything else.
It is probably why women develop emotionally earlier, because sensitivity to ones children and their needs is crucial to their survival, and for guys it is conformity to the group, its ability to fight and survive, irrespective of individual desires or wants.
So a male hair bun, is a contradiction. Just chop it off or let it all hang out.
We think we are independent to these signals, but they actually are everywhere.
How did hair styles become linked to gender attraction and thereby sexual orientation discrimination?
Sex is about one thing, children. It is how we exist and how we will produce future offspring. It is central to our survival and how we structure our lives. Every other basis of partnering with an aim for something else other than children, is a distraction from biology and what we are.
What people do not realise, is sexual bonding is only a small part of life, intimacy is far more important, empathy and caring for others. It is why in our society the growing divide between intimacy and sexual relationships is spreading, people living alone with lots of temporary relationships, sometimes only one night affairs. Before drugs existed to cure std's, that was often a death sentence.
Is the world growing in intimacy and care, or fracturing into people are gods with their rights and how dare you challenge them?
14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,
15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.
1 Cor 11:14-15
This expression of Pauls strikes me as cultural. It appears in the roman empire, short hair for men was good, and going bald something of a curse.
Orthodox jews vary in their hair styles but they do try and obey this command
27 "'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard
Lev 19:27
5 "'Priests must not shave their heads or shave off the edges of their beards or cut their bodies.
Leviticus 21:5
Not sure why cutting your hair as described above is a problem.
Some have suggested this is all about advertising ones faith openly to others, by the unusual hair style.
Mike Waters
Well-Known Member
"Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,
but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering."
This is an appeal to nature; natural law and not Culture. What is "long" for men.... what is "short" for a woman? It is dealing with nature; the confusion of the sexes.
As coming of age at the tail-end of the hippie generation, I was all for long hair on men, that is, until one day I saw this long beautiful hair from behind, and thought to myself... "Nice hair! Nice butt!" (Pre-Christian days)!) When he turned around, by "nature" I gagged and was embarrassed at my thoughts. Since then, I saw limits to long hair on men. Nature kicked in!
As for "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." This is semi-cultural in that the Israelites were not supposed to chase the cultural fads of the Heathens. Any compromise with Heathen Culture was viewed as a step towards apostacy and idolatry. Marrying a non-Jew back then, was like "missionary-dating" today.... it is usually the Believer that gets converted!
This is an appeal to nature; natural law and not Culture. What is "long" for men.... what is "short" for a woman? It is dealing with nature; the confusion of the sexes.
As coming of age at the tail-end of the hippie generation, I was all for long hair on men, that is, until one day I saw this long beautiful hair from behind, and thought to myself... "Nice hair! Nice butt!" (Pre-Christian days)!) When he turned around, by "nature" I gagged and was embarrassed at my thoughts. Since then, I saw limits to long hair on men. Nature kicked in!
As for "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." This is semi-cultural in that the Israelites were not supposed to chase the cultural fads of the Heathens. Any compromise with Heathen Culture was viewed as a step towards apostacy and idolatry. Marrying a non-Jew back then, was like "missionary-dating" today.... it is usually the Believer that gets converted!
This type of argument depicts a person who really does not have an adequate answer. Rather, I say, "What does the Bible say?"
To study scriptures one needs to burn the midnight oil! Have you done this or have you followed the works of a well known theologian, a pastor, or a serious Bible student who are subject to error?
To God Be The Glory
[QUOTE="Candidus, post: 746929, member: 8508"]This is an appeal to nature; natural law and not Culture. What is "long" for men.... what is "short" for a woman? It is dealing with nature; the confusion of the sexes.[/QUOTE]
Someone introduced the Nazarite Vow but that is not what is in view.
I introduced 1 Corinthians Chapter 11 and I'm surprised you've missed the context. There it is speaking of hierchy (verse 3) and not about culture.
4) Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (long hair), dishonoureth his head.
5) But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered (bald) dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven (bald).
The rest of the chapter speaks for itself.
To God Be The Glory
Someone introduced the Nazarite Vow but that is not what is in view.
I introduced 1 Corinthians Chapter 11 and I'm surprised you've missed the context. There it is speaking of hierchy (verse 3) and not about culture.
4) Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (long hair), dishonoureth his head.
5) But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered (bald) dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven (bald).
The rest of the chapter speaks for itself.
To God Be The Glory
Last edited:
I did not miss the context. Paul appeals directly to "nature," does he not?
"Doeth not even nature itself teach you?" (KJV) Yes, in context the hierarchy and culture are both part of the Corinthian "problem." Paul, speaking to a Heathen Culture appeals to natural law. The truth of such an appeal transcends the immediate context, going well beyond the misplaced power in the religious structure in Corinth. In my opinion, natural law has direct application to today.
People who do not conform to the "norms" of society are usually marginalised and characterised as a "bad" person, who the "Normalised" people do not want to associate with. They label them as misfits, perverts, people they would not trust in a group.
The OP askes if a man with the outward sign of having "buns," which was not defined by the writer in the OP, can be saved? Then in the next couple of posts the meaning of a "buns", was defined as having the meaning of a particular type of hair style, associated with having long hair, where the hair was being controlled such that it did not get blown around by the wind and become tangled. I think that the third post suggested that a man with "buns" had feminized himself for putting his hair into a bun.
Christ chastised the Pharisees for keeping the outside clean and looking "good," while the inside was dirty and corrupt and perverted.
The second and third poster in this thread hijacked this thread to say that "normalised" people who conformed to the acceptable "dress" code, where no reference is being made to the type of clothing that is being worn or not worn, was the means by which God would judge that which is not visible of a person.
This thread may have started off as a bit of fun by the OP poster but quickly became legalistic as to what was acceptable by the "Pharisees," on this forum, who also posted their narrow views as to what they considered was acceptable codes for a person to be saved.
Jesus went to the considered "sinners" of His world to heal them, and left the Physicians, i.e. the Pharisees, alone with their "knowledge" of what is right and wrong, to heal themselves.
We all know the saying to, "Never judge a book by its cover.", but that has become the norm for this thread.
I just wonder if this is also the case today.
Shalom
The OP askes if a man with the outward sign of having "buns," which was not defined by the writer in the OP, can be saved? Then in the next couple of posts the meaning of a "buns", was defined as having the meaning of a particular type of hair style, associated with having long hair, where the hair was being controlled such that it did not get blown around by the wind and become tangled. I think that the third post suggested that a man with "buns" had feminized himself for putting his hair into a bun.
Christ chastised the Pharisees for keeping the outside clean and looking "good," while the inside was dirty and corrupt and perverted.
The second and third poster in this thread hijacked this thread to say that "normalised" people who conformed to the acceptable "dress" code, where no reference is being made to the type of clothing that is being worn or not worn, was the means by which God would judge that which is not visible of a person.
This thread may have started off as a bit of fun by the OP poster but quickly became legalistic as to what was acceptable by the "Pharisees," on this forum, who also posted their narrow views as to what they considered was acceptable codes for a person to be saved.
Jesus went to the considered "sinners" of His world to heal them, and left the Physicians, i.e. the Pharisees, alone with their "knowledge" of what is right and wrong, to heal themselves.
We all know the saying to, "Never judge a book by its cover.", but that has become the norm for this thread.
I just wonder if this is also the case today.
Shalom
Last edited:
Mike Waters
Well-Known Member
I have been a Christian for well over 70 years having been baptised by immersion in 1951.
Whilst I was away doing my National Service my original assembly imploded in controversy to the degree that, when I was demobbed, I tried in vain to settle into another place of worship. Eventually I withdrew into a long "midnight oil" careful and prayerful reappraisal of the "Faith first delivered to the saints" which culminated in a published booklet rejecting all forms of denominational division. Since when I have worshipped wherever my acquiescence to man made Creeds, Statements of Faith, or Articles of Agreement, were not a prerequisite.
What's your CV and ....have you "followed the works of a well known theologian, a pastor, or a serious Bible student who are subject to error?"
Which assembly do you use for worship and for how long?
No. In every instance, when looking at a portrait of Jesus, was He painted as having long or short hair? If long would He not be in violation of 1 Corinthians 11:4,7?
No. I have read but never followed their works and since have relied in the teachings of the Holy Spirit prayerfully.
I worship in a Reformed persuasion for almost 20 years. What is the import of this question?
To God Be The Glory
Last edited:
Go back to OP, post #1 and read the first sentence of the second paragraph.
Don't let me accuse you of Exodus 20:16 "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
To God Be The Glory
Similar threads
