Connie, I don't fault you for saying "I feel". I don't say "i feel" very often because I say "I believe" instead.

Having said that, fasting and prayer is for us, not God. There is a difference between fasting and a "hunger strike".

Psalms 35:13 But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth: I humbled my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom.
Psalms 69:10 When I wept, and chastened my soul with fasting, that was to my reproach.

One thing you and I have in common is to become obsessed with something (and I believe everyone should be a little obsessed as opposed to being careless). You obviously desire to honour the Lord above everything else.

May I be so bold as to offer why this might have come up a 2nd time while fasting?

Psalms 116:7 Return unto thy rest, O my soul; for the LORD hath dealt bountifully with thee.

God may have been trying to reassure you that your heart is more important than your works. If God changes us from the inside out, we shouldn't be trying to change ourselves from the outside in.

Just a suggestion....Not being dogmatic. I've gotten into these "loops" myself (maybe in one now), and I hate to see you struggle so with something that isn't that major of an issue (in my opinion).

1 Corinthians 12:2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.

This passage might shed some light as to why Paul addressed this issue in Chapter 11.

1 Corinthians 11:14-16 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

The way I read it, Paul had advocated women's covering their heads and some were objecting to that, possibly in the spirit of Christian freedom as some have suggested, so that when Paul acts to silence the contention at the end by declaring they have no such custom, he's declaring it a custom decided by apostolic authority. He has to mean that he won't hear any more arguments against the head covering, since he'd used a number of arguments in favor of it and if they won't accept those then they have to accept his authority.

Paul is arguing against an external covering for a woman's head, and showing that her hair is her covering - then he states they has no such custom: ie. of women wearing external coverings.

Makes absolutely no sense that Paul wouldn't have simply said "hair" from the beginning if that's what he meant. Paul doesn't talk in circles, he says what he means. The hair verse is meant to be one of Paul's list of reasons why women should cover their heads, like saying even nature moves you to cover your heads so cover them, and that is how the church understood it from the beginning, and most did even to the middle of the 20th century. Yes, I think it's an odd way of saying it too, but the hair interpretation is far more absurd.

You REALLY have to explain how Christian women for centuries learned from Paul to cover their heads not only in church but even all the time, if you think Paul is arguing against a head covering. That makes absolutely no sense from any angle. You have to explain why paintings in the Roman catacombs of women in prayer show them with shawls pulled up over their heads.

Paul is going on and on about reasons for a head covering but you think he is arguing AGAINST a head covering?

How do you explain verse 6 then? For if a woman is not covered let her be shorn, but if it is shameful for her to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.

So, does it go, If a woman doesn't have long hair, let her have no hair at all, but if that is shameful then let her have long hair?

Why wouldn't Paul just simply say, Have the women in your churches grow their hair out long?

(Well one reason he doesn't is that they already have their hair long, as women did throughout history until the 20th century.)

I think he's saying that if she won't cover her hair that's as good as being bald or not being covered at all, because hair is not a covering.

Oh well, I guess I have to give up. I'm only going to get high blood pressure.

Thanks for your supportive words, Pastor Mikie. But I don't think I ever said "I feel," that's not my style either. George seems to think the inferences I drew from the text and from history are "humanist" thinking, but they aren't just feelings of mine, they are logical inferences. Of course I could be wrong about them but they aren't humanism or just personal feelings.

Just for the record too, I wasn't fasting and praying ABOUT the head covering; I wasn't even thinking about it at the time. I was fasting and praying at the beginning of the new year, 2007, because I'd been getting spiritually dull and wanted to draw closer to the Lord. Every time I do that it seems I get leadings from the Lord about various things, and in that period the head covering was one of them.

I'm going to TRY to stay away from this thread now no matter what.

The hair verse is meant to be one of Paul's list of reasons why women should cover their heads, like saying even nature moves you to cover your heads so cover them

1 Corinthians 11:14-15 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Nature doesn't teach us that a woman should cover her hair - but that a woman should have long hair and a man have short hair. It is against nature when men start looking like women with long hair - we would call that effeminate, which God forbids a man to be; and women start looking like men with butch hair cuts, that is often what lesbians and women libbers do.

Revelation 9:8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.

Hm, hair as the hair of women... Long, perhaps?

Yes, women are to wear their hair long. No, NATURE doesn't teach us that women should cover their hair, it teaches that women by nature DO wear their hair long as a natural covering, which Paul is using as a reason for them to cover their heads. The passage does affirm that women "by nature" should wear their hair long by saying they DO wear it long, which we can see by the fact that Paul expects them all to recognize that this is the natural thing -- "Doesn't even nature itself teach you" this, he asked, showing he expects them to recognize it, just as he also expects them to recognize that a woman's shaving her head would be a disgrace. Since long hair is natural and a shorn head is a disgrace, we can infer that they already did wear it long, so there would not have been an argument in the church about that, there would not have been a problem for the church leaders to ask Paul about, and Paul would have no need to teach them anything about something they already did.

And again, women DID cover their heads for worship and prayer in all the churches within a couple centuries of that message from Paul, evidenced by pictures painted in the catacombs and down through the centuries in Europe, and by the testimony of Tertullian, and this ought to tell you that you have it wrong if you think he meant hair. In order to come to that conclusion you have to ignore the whole context of the passage.

Does it make sense that Paul would keep saying over and over that the man should not cover his head in praying and prophesying but the woman should, if he meant hair? Does anybody ever call having long hair "covering" the head? That is just not normal English in describing hair.

When he says a man should not cover his head obviously he means a man should not wear a hat or something else on his head during praying and prophesying. If he means that about men when he says "cover the head" then he also means a covering that can be put on and taken off when saying that women SHOULD wear something on the head during praying and prophesying.

And why would he specify praying and prophesying if he was talking about hair, since obviously you can't have long hair for that but not have long hair the rest of the time, or conversely, have short hair for that but long hair the rest of the time. Clearly he is talking about something you can put on and take off.

I Cor 11:4*Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. . . . 7*For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God . . . .

If Paul meant hair, he'd have said "A man should not have long hair," period, and he'd have left off the specific instance of praying and prophesying since obviously he can't put on and take off his hair depending on the circumstances.

There is also a historical point involved in this, even a Biblical point, since men DID cover their heads in a state of mourning or humility or shame in many cultures in those days, pulling their robelike garments up over their heads, and in the Bible we see:

Esther 6:12 And Mordecai came again to the king's gate. But Haman hasted to his house mourning, and having his head covered.

Yes, I know I said I was going to try not to post any more. It's hard to stop when I keep thinking of reasons why this can't be hair Paul is talking about.

I have appreciated this thread, as I too have wrestled with this for a long time. I remember just a few years ago, the ladies at the local Baptist churches wore hats (some still do in certain places), and kept them on during services, but the men removed theirs at the door. The ladies also wore gloves and dared not hug another man, as is done today.

I can see where the scriptures seem to be referring to a separate covering, yet I've seen numerous girls get angry at the very thought of hiding their long hair. I've also seen many who are very vain about who has the longest - from both the (Independent) Baptists and Pentecostals.

There was a dear lady who wore a shawl to assembly and when prayer was said, she covered. I have worn knitted bun covers but that's as far as I've gone. If I'm doing wrong by not covering, may the Lord forgive me.

The verse, "Doth not even nature itself teach you..." is confusing to me, as the male lion has long hair - the female does not. If my hair were cut to just below my earlobes, I would be told I look like a man...yet if a man had hair down past his earlobes, he'd be told he looks like a woman. What is long? Men and boys both wear long pants, yet one piece of fabric is cut shorter in the making process.

Well, thanks for allowing me to say all this, for what it's worth (prolly nothing)... again, y'all have given me much food for thought. This seems to be a great learning place.

Solution: Wear a hat. No sarcasm intended here.

Romans 14:23 ...for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

My concern is how you will feel around other women who don't believe it is necessary to wear a hat in church.

Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike.Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.