Re: Famous Longhairs
Posted by Robert A. on October 27, 1999 at 19:13:15:
In Reply to: Famous Longhairs posted by kilgore on October 27, 1999 at 15:04:04:
: Many vegetarian sites on the net have massive lists of famous vegetarians. I think somebody should compile a list of famous longhairs. It's amazing how fast people shut up when you mention somebody they look up to who also had/has the same characteristic they are questioning you about.
How about Ben Franklin?
Re: Famous Longhairs
Posted by Silvermane on October 27, 1999 at 21:15:39:In Reply to: Re: Famous Longhairs posted by Robert A. on October 27, 1999 at 19:13:15:
: : Many vegetarian sites on the net have massive lists of famous vegetarians. I think somebody should compile a list of famous longhairs. It's amazing how fast people shut up when you mention somebody they look up to who also had/has the same characteristic they are questioning you about.
:
: How about Ben Franklin?Traditional depictions of JESUS CHRIST portray him as a longhair. How's that for famous?
Re: Famous Longhairs
Posted by Ottawa Male on October 28, 1999 at 14:58:52:In Reply to: Re: Famous Longhairs posted by Silvermane on October 27, 1999 at 21:15:39:
Christian Fundamentalists claim that Jesus had *short* hair as, they also claim, did his disciples. They cite I Corinthians 11:14 as their
authority:"Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair, is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride.."
Since they believe both letters to the Corinthians are part of the Word of God, they conclude that Christ, being God, could not in his own appearance, violate the principles of short hair for men per
I Corinth. 11:14.They substantiate this further by noting that the traditional depictions of Jesus are hundreds of years after His time on Earth, and that frescoes, drawings and other images of Jesus in the Roman Catacombs and other ancient locations, show Him to be with short hair.
These are not my views, since I question the content of many of Paul's letters in the Bible as to whether they are the Word of God, or the word of Paul. Long hair *can* look good on males, despite
I Corinthians 11:14. And if it can look good, it can't be degrading.OM
***********************************************
: Traditional depictions of JESUS CHRIST portray him as a longhair. How's that for famous?
Re: Famous Longhairs
Posted by MJ on October 28, 1999 at 19:34:59:In Reply to: Re: Famous Longhairs posted by Ottawa Male on October 28, 1999 at 14:58:52:
: Christian Fundamentalists claim that Jesus had *short* hair as, they also claim, did his disciples. They cite I Corinthians 11:14 as their
: authority:
: "Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair, is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride.."
: Since they believe both letters to the Corinthians are part of the Word of God, they conclude that Christ, being God, could not in his own appearance, violate the principles of short hair for men per
: I Corinth. 11:14.
: They substantiate this further by noting that the traditional depictions of Jesus are hundreds of years after His time on Earth, and that frescoes, drawings and other images of Jesus in the Roman Catacombs and other ancient locations, show Him to be with short hair.
: These are not my views, since I question the content of many of Paul's letters in the Bible as to whether they are the Word of God, or the word of Paul. Long hair *can* look good on males, despite
: I Corinthians 11:14. And if it can look good, it can't be degrading.
: OM
: ***********************************************
As an atheist, I find all this to be a moot point. However, when discussing the matter with friends/relatives of a more fundamentalist stripe, I point out that the letter to the Corinthians was written some time after the crucifixion episode, whereas the older biblical texts tend to favor long hair- i.e., the vow of the Nazirites, which is still used by the Rastafarians as the basis for their wearing of dredlocks; in fact, men were expressly forbidden from cutting the sides of their hair- note the sidelocks worn by Orthodox Jews. Which makes for a serious theological inconsistency... how could long hair be mandated at one point, then banned at another, in different sections of the same 'inerrant' book? From a sociological point of view, the 'short hair' requirement probably served a good purpose, though, since Judea was under Roman rule at the time. When you're living in a vassal state it's always a good idea to look as much as your rulers as possible, and the Romans were quite fond of short hair- which could also easily explain the short-haired depictions in the Roman sites. Thus, requiring the newly xtianized Jews to wear their hair short would help them look like good, law-abiding subjects and maybe keep them out of trouble. Anyway, I'm not about to start a theological argument over a religion I don't follow, so I will end there... just felt the urge to put a historical lens over the issue.
MJ
Re: Famous Longhairs
Posted by Silvermane on October 28, 1999 at 21:05:45:In Reply to: Re: Famous Longhairs posted by MJ on October 28, 1999 at 19:34:59:
Interesting observations from both of you guys, but I was not trying to start any sort of theological debates or proselytize in any way, shape or form.
*Whatever* you believe (or don't believe) regarding Jesus as a diety or whatever, the fact remains that most *traditional* depictions of the guy (or the God - whatever) show him with long hair, just like the Buddah is always depicted as being bald. (I guess that fundamentalists were too busy cutting hair to paint any pictures of a short-haired Jesus 'cause I've never seen anything but depictions of Jesus as a longhair, myself.) So regardless of what anyone thinks of Jesus one way or the other (including fundamentalists and/or athiests), the guy IS pretty FAMOUS, and has been depited as a longhair for many centuries, and *that* was my point.
: : Christian Fundamentalists claim that Jesus had *short* hair as, they also claim, did his disciples. They cite I Corinthians 11:14 as their: : authority:
: : "Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair, is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride.."
: : Since they believe both letters to the Corinthians are part of the Word of God, they conclude that Christ, being God, could not in his own appearance, violate the principles of short hair for men per: : I Corinth. 11:14.
: : They substantiate this further by noting that the traditional depictions of Jesus are hundreds of years after His time on Earth, and that frescoes, drawings and other images of Jesus in the Roman Catacombs and other ancient locations, show Him to be with short hair.
: : These are not my views, since I question the content of many of Paul's letters in the Bible as to whether they are the Word of God, or the word of Paul. Long hair *can* look good on males, despite: : I Corinthians 11:14. And if it can look good, it can't be degrading.
: : OM: : ***********************************************
: As an atheist, I find all this to be a moot point. However, when discussing the matter with friends/relatives of a more fundamentalist stripe, I point out that the letter to the Corinthians was written some time after the crucifixion episode, whereas the older biblical texts tend to favor long hair- i.e., the vow of the Nazirites, which is still used by the Rastafarians as the basis for their wearing of dredlocks; in fact, men were expressly forbidden from cutting the sides of their hair- note the sidelocks worn by Orthodox Jews. Which makes for a serious theological inconsistency... how could long hair be mandated at one point, then banned at another, in different sections of the same 'inerrant' book? From a sociological point of view, the 'short hair' requirement probably served a good purpose, though, since Judea was under Roman rule at the time. When you're living in a vassal state it's always a good idea to look as much as your rulers as possible, and the Romans were quite fond of short hair- which could also easily explain the short-haired depictions in the Roman sites. Thus, requiring the newly xtianized Jews to wear their hair short would help them look like good, law-abiding subjects and maybe keep them out of trouble. Anyway, I'm not about to start a theological argument over a religion I don't follow, so I will end there... just felt the urge to put a historical lens over the issue.
: MJ
Re: Famous Longhairs
Posted by Ottawa Male on October 28, 1999 at 23:08:47:In Reply to: Re: Famous Longhairs posted by Silvermane on October 28, 1999 at 21:05:45:
Good on, Silverman.
OM
**********************************************
: Interesting observations from both of you guys, but I was not trying to start any sort of theological debates or proselytize in any way, shape or form.: *Whatever* you believe (or don't believe) regarding Jesus as a diety or whatever, the fact remains that most *traditional* depictions of the guy (or the God - whatever) show him with long hair, just like the Buddah is always depicted as being bald. (I guess that fundamentalists were too busy cutting hair to paint any pictures of a short-haired Jesus 'cause I've never seen anything but depictions of Jesus as a longhair, myself.) So regardless of what anyone thinks of Jesus one way or the other (including fundamentalists and/or athiests), the guy IS pretty FAMOUS, and has been depited as a longhair for many centuries, and *that* was my point.
:
: : : Christian Fundamentalists claim that Jesus had *short* hair as, they also claim, did his disciples. They cite I Corinthians 11:14 as their: : : authority:
:
: : : "Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to wear long hair, is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride..":
Re: Biblical Longhairs ?
Posted by Ottawa Male on October 28, 1999 at 23:04:55:In Reply to: Re: Famous Longhairs posted by MJ on October 28, 1999 at 19:34:59:
: : Christian Fundamentalists claim that Jesus had *short* hair as, they also claim, did his disciples. They cite I Corinthians 11:14 as their
Excellent argument, MJ, except for the bit on Nazarites. The fundies have an argument there too, claiming that Nazarite ways, including long hair, were an abomination to the Lord.OM
**********************************************
: ..when discussing the matter with friends/relatives of a more fundamentalist stripe, I point out that the letter to the Corinthians was written some time after the crucifixion episode, whereas the older biblical texts tend to favor long hair- i.e., the vow of the Nazirites, which is still used by the Rastafarians as the basis for their wearing of dredlocks; in fact, men were expressly forbidden from cutting the sides of their hair- note the sidelocks worn by Orthodox Jews. Which makes for a serious theological inconsistency... how could long hair be mandated at one point, then banned at another, in different sections of the same 'inerrant' book? From a sociological point of view, the 'short hair' requirement probably served a good purpose, though, since Judea was under Roman rule at the time. When you're living in a vassal state it's always a good idea to look as much as your rulers as possible, and the Romans were quite fond of short hair- which could also easily explain the short-haired depictions in the Roman sites. Thus, requiring the newly xtianized Jews to wear their hair short would help them look like good, law-abiding subjects and maybe keep them out of trouble. Anyway, I'm not about to start a theological argument over a religion I don't follow, so I will end there... just felt the urge to put a historical lens over the issue.
: MJ
Jesus, Schmeezus...
Posted by Ray on October 31, 1999 at 22:06:52:In Reply to: Re: Famous Longhairs posted by MJ on October 28, 1999 at 19:34:59:
It's not about Jesus, the Word of God, or any other depiction of ancient history. Today it's about power, control and, oh yea, part of a great business model for the companies that are churches, just like the claims by some that if you follow the wrong church you go to Hell.
Can you say competition? For me, growing it out is among other things part of how I say that my relationship with God does not have to be marked on my exposed forehead to be real.
Junk Mail from Gorgeous Famous Longhairs
Posted by Bill on October 31, 1999 at 23:35:37:In Reply to: Re: Famous Longhairs posted by Ottawa Male on October 28, 1999 at 14:58:52:
: : Traditional depictions of JESUS CHRIST portray him as a longhair. How's that for famous?
: Christian Fundamentalists claim that Jesus had *short* hair as, they also claim, did his disciples.
I prayed all night for an answer to this question, and the very next day I got the answer in my mailbox:
: Long hair *can* look good on males, despite
: I Corinthians 11:14. And if it can look good, it can't be degrading.Yeah, I agree. Jesus's mane is gorgeous. Not degrading at all. Besides, God created us with long hair. To say His creation is degrading is blasphemous.
Re: Famous Longhairs
Posted by Nick on October 29, 1999 at 09:18:41:In Reply to: Re: Famous Longhairs posted by Robert A. on October 27, 1999 at 19:13:15:
Famous UNIX longhairs:Richard Stallman (author of Emacs, GNU C Compiler and a lot of other goodies)
Allan Cox (has done a lot of programming for the Linux kernel)
Dan Farmer (computer security specialist, author of the SATAN security tools)
Re: S.A.T.A.N. Longhair?
Posted by Happy Hippy Head on October 30, 1999 at 10:52:11:In Reply to: Re: Famous Longhairs posted by Nick on October 29, 1999 at 09:18:41:
:
: Famous UNIX longhairs:: Dan Farmer (computer security specialist, author of the SATAN security tools)
Careful, let's not vilify this long-hair as SATAN, even if he does write a program that detects ways to break-in to a computer!-) You might find this information valuable when you need to know where your computer security can be improved!)
Re: Famous Longhairs
Posted by Madoc on October 28, 1999 at 00:44:19:
In Reply to: Famous Longhairs posted by kilgore on October 27, 1999 at 15:04:04:
Hello Kilgore and hello all,
This sounds like an interesting idea. One thing though, I am wondering about the effectiveness of pointing to Longhairs who are now several centuries dead. Not that they were any less a Longhair than today but I wonder how effective it is to point to someone who has since become an image.
I don't think most people are aware that our Founding Fathers all were Longhairs. Someone recently posted that Paul Revere's hair went all the way down to his butt.
I guess what I am trying to get at is relevancy. Everybody back then had Longhair. So much so that it was not distinctive. Also, the images of these people from ages past have become so repeated and ingrained that we no longer see them as having Longhair or as individuals. They are simply images from history books or on the backs of coins or bills.
I think it might be more effective to point out Longhairs within this century. That would have more relevancy as Longhair has not been in style at any time for the past hundred years. Notable men during this period who also had Longhair would be something to sit up and take notice of. That, I think, would be more effective.
I am not saying that we should not list famous Longhairs of ages past but that we should be aware of how Longhairs from so long ago have become stylized. I hope this helps.
Until later,
Madoc
: Hi All,
: I am a vegetarian, and when somebody gives me a hard time about it I just rattle off a few names like, Einstein, Kafka, Thoreau, Da Vinci, Darwin, Thomas Edison, Mark Twain, Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Schweitzer, Pythagorus, Socrates, Gandhi, Plato, Voltaire, and Hank Aaron. Just to name a few famous herbivores.
: Many vegetarian sites on the net have massive lists of famous vegetarians. I think somebody should compile a list of famous longhairs. It's amazing how fast people shut up when you mention somebody they look up to who also had/has the same characteristic they are questioning you about.
: Kilgore
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: Voltaire
Re: Famous Longhairs
Posted by Charles on October 28, 1999 at 11:01:44:In Reply to: Re: Famous Longhairs posted by Madoc on October 28, 1999 at 00:44:19:
: Hello Kilgore and hello all,
: This sounds like an interesting idea. One thing though, I am wondering about the effectiveness of pointing to Longhairs who are now several centuries dead. Not that they were any less a Longhair than today but I wonder how effective it is to point to someone who has since become an image.
: I don't think most people are aware that our Founding Fathers all were Longhairs. Someone recently posted that Paul Revere's hair went all the way down to his butt.
: I guess what I am trying to get at is relevancy. Everybody back then had Longhair. So much so that it was not distinctive. Also, the images of these people from ages past have become so repeated and ingrained that we no longer see them as having Longhair or as individuals. They are simply images from history books or on the backs of coins or bills.
: I think it might be more effective to point out Longhairs within this century. That would have more relevancy as Longhair has not been in style at any time for the past hundred years. Notable men during this period who also had Longhair would be something to sit up and take notice of. That, I think, would be more effective.
: I am not saying that we should not list famous Longhairs of ages past but that we should be aware of how Longhairs from so long ago have become stylized. I hope this helps.
: Until later,
: Madoc
You got a point Madoc. It will definitelky be more effective to cite famous longhairs, especially after the second world war.
I can think of a few who aren't musicians but they are short hairs now:-
Andre Agasi and Bjorn Borg are among some of them.
Charles
Re: Famous Longhairs
Posted by SFMark on October 28, 1999 at 12:09:55:In Reply to: Re: Famous Longhairs posted by Madoc on October 28, 1999 at 00:44:19:
: Hello Kilgore and hello all,
: This sounds like an interesting idea. One thing though, I am wondering about the effectiveness of pointing to Longhairs who are now several centuries dead. Not that they were any less a Longhair than today but I wonder how effective it is to point to someone who has since become an image.
: I don't think most people are aware that our Founding Fathers all were Longhairs. Someone recently posted that Paul Revere's hair went all the way down to his butt.
: I guess what I am trying to get at is relevancy. Everybody back then had Longhair. So much so that it was not distinctive. Also, the images of these people from ages past have become so repeated and ingrained that we no longer see them as having Longhair or as individuals. They are simply images from history books or on the backs of coins or bills.
: I think it might be more effective to point out Longhairs within this century. That would have more relevancy as Longhair has not been in style at any time for the past hundred years. Notable men during this period who also had Longhair would be something to sit up and take notice of. That, I think, would be more effective.
: I am not saying that we should not list famous Longhairs of ages past but that we should be aware of how Longhairs from so long ago have become stylized. I hope this helps.
Hi All!
From this century the one non musician who comes to my mind is Albert Einstein unless you want to count Fabio and Brad Pitt who are not musicians either.
Oh yeah and some wrestlers. :)
Re: Famous Longhairs
Posted by Tim Beard on November 04, 1999 at 23:21:16:
In Reply to: Famous Longhairs posted by kilgore on October 27, 1999 at 15:04:04:
: Many vegetarian sites on the net have massive lists of famous vegetarians. I think somebody should compile a list of famous longhairs. It's amazing how fast people shut up when you mention somebody they look up to who also had/has the same characteristic they are questioning you about.
These are some famous long hairs:
Robert T. Bakker. He is a paleontologist who does research about fossils and dinosaurs. Also wrote books and helped some museums in Wyoming USA. I couldn't find pictures of his long hair and beard, but some of his books are at Barnes & Noble.
Korczak Ziolkowski. A sculptor who started carving the CrazyHorse sculpture in a mountain in South Dakota, USA. For more information see a web site at Crazy Horse Memorial Foundation Home Page
The family pictures show his full long beard but I'm not sure if he had long hair.
I think Willie Nelson always has long hair.
Re: Famous Longhairs
Posted by HAPPY HIPPY HEAD on November 05, 1999 at 19:45:00:In Reply to: Re: Famous Longhairs posted by Tim Beard on November 04, 1999 at 23:21:16:
: I think Willie Nelson always has long hair.
and a ponytail!