[DariusBane]

“As the liberal “egalitarians” and prohomosexual apologists argue.”

That’s not an argument, that’s just a reactionary statement. You do so without addressing issues like long hair for men, or what qualifies as “long” for men or “short” for women. So although you reject my argument of cultural norms on it’s face, you do so without much enthusiasm.

Then you expose the wearing of pants by women for “agricultural reasons”.

So the excuses that appeal to you are ok, but the excuses of others are not.

[JRandomFreeper]

Don't even get into vows like Samson took, which required not cutting his hair.

Or plowing fields with heifers....

/johnny

[daniel1212]

That’s not an argument, that’s just a reactionary statement.

Rejecting the cultural norms argument is not simply a reactionary statement, but a rejection of a hermeneutic used to negate what Scripture says. Male headship in 1Cor. 11 and its censure of women being uncovered is not based on culture by Creation reflecting the order in the Godhead itself. You may argue what the covering is, but that a women is to be covered transcends time and culture.

You do so without addressing issues like long hair for men, or what qualifies as “long” for men or “short” for women. So

Then you need to read what i wrote, in which i dealt with it by providing basic parameters based on sexual attraction so that you need not get into legalism. If you can't make basic judgments on what is sexually revealing based on what i wrote then you foster legalism.

Then you expose the wearing of pants by women for “agricultural reasons”. So the excuses that appeal to you are ok, but the excuses of others are not.

Then you lack the ability to reason based on basic parameters and principle .