Well, men should not wear long hair.

The Apostle Paul says so, but why?

Because nature says it's unnatural.

But how does Paul arrive at such a conclusion?

Isn't nature the reason why men can grow long hair in the first place?

Today's question comes from the one and only Dr. Andy Neselli, who asks this, hello pastor

John Paul argues from nature.

In both Romans 126, 27, and 1 Corinthians 11, 14 and 15.

In Romans, Paul argues that same sex passions and intercourse are contrary to nature, because

they fundamentally rebel against gods created design for sex.

In 1 Corinthians, Paul asserts that nature teaches that long hair on men and short hair on

women are dishonorable.

How do you reconcile those two passages?

Is Paul using the word nature in the same way, or is using the same word in different

senses?

Is problematic to see Paul is using nature in exactly the same way in both passages?

If you say they're both only cultural, then that opens the door to same sex passions

and intercourse being okay in other cultures.

But if you say that they are both based on gods created design, then you have to say that

long hair on men and short hair on women are always wrong in every culture without exception.

And as a friendly reminder, Jonathan Edwards had long hair, especially on how do you

respond to Andy?

...