A Long Hair, Tattoo Pastor

[firestormx]

 

 

 But I can and will tell you that your ministry in the Lord will be hindered because you have gotten those tattoo's prior to salvation. 

 

I disagree.  It is a living testimony to Joe's post #104.

 

That's is fine if you want to disagree. But I can tell you that no matter if it's a living testimony on one's part or not the ministry in some circles will be hinderered as some will be unaccepting of those with them. I speak from personal experience on my part.

 

I find what you are saying so sad, but also true. Maybe I am wrong on my application of scripture. But, Jesus said "whom ever receives you receives me and whom ever rejects you rejects me".  If Jesus sends a man even if they have long hair and tattoo's and that person is rejected, then isn't it Jesus they are rejecting????

[firestormx]

One other quick thing.  Lets suppose that Shiloh were right, and he clearly is not.  How was the Corinthian church to discern long from short?  He didn't give them the precise measurements.

 

That is absolute bunk.  God does not have to be precise in giving us measurements.  I have already proved Shiloh is wrong by going through the text section by section, and it is no surprise to me that nobody has tried to address the actual text.  All they have done is tried to come up with phony reasons we aren't required to obey the scripture.  Another thing you are wrong about is the issue of this being a sin.  It actually calls it a shame.  There is a difference.  The Bible also makes a distinction between sins unto death and sins that are not unto death.  All sins are not equal.  I don't consider this a sin issue, so much as it shows how close to God we wish to walk.  No matter how many attempts you make to say the scriptures don't mean what they plainly say, the text is there to show you are wrong, but Firestormx, perhaps you would like to go through the text verse by verse in the Soapbox and try to prove me wrong?  I don't believe you or anyone else can do it.  If we take it as written, it means exactly what it said it means.  You have to come up with extra-Biblical arguments and excuses to even pretend like you have a valid argument.  Also, I would point out that Shiloh hasn't even provided any sources for the claims he made, Biblical or extra-Biblical.  You are wanting to latch on to what he said because it defends your point of view, but it is based on nothing.

Sin is to willfully transgress God's revealed will and word. If it is God's will for all men ( no exceptions ) to have short hair and all women ( no exceptions) to have long hair , than to violate that would be sin! Your argument makes this sin. It makes it God's will for all, to trespass that would be sin.  

 

Added in at edit 

P.S. This is the post of Shiloh's I agree with, it is post # 65

Paul's issue with long hair had to do with the men in Corinth who wore their hair long and effeminate in order to attract other men.  These were male prostitutes who had repented and left that lifestyle and that the context on why Paul was telling those Corinthian men who were new believers that they needed to cut their hair.

Edited June 1, 2015 by firestormx

[MorningGlory]

 

I have addressed that already more than once in this thread.  The Bible must not do any such a thing.  It simply says the man's hair is to be short and the woman's hair is to be long.  It is a judgment call by the individual.  There is no set number of inches in length, and I have already said that more than one time.  If a man can honestly say his hair is short, who am I to dispute that?  If a woman can honestly say her hair is long, who am I to dispute that?  God knows we aren't complete morons, and we know what long and short is without giving us a ruler measurement.  I know when my hair is short, and I know when it is getting shaggy, but not really long.  I know if it gets to a place where I would describe it as being long.  I have never heard anyone incapable of saying if their hair is long or short, ever.  They will either say, long, short or shoulder length, which is neither here nor there.  Again, the Bible says what it says.  God chose to mention long and short without giving exact measurements, and all the excuses in the world won't change that.  All the feeble attempts to claim we can't do what God said won't change that.  It is what it is. 

I thought that a woman's hair was not to be cut at all.

 

 

Can you imagine how old and dead the hair would get if it was never cut?  I think those churches that say a woman should never cut her hair are not basing their assertions on Scripture. 

[Guest Butero]

Firestorm, The correct Biblical definition of sin is found in 1 John 3:4

 

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law:  for sin is the transgression of the law.

 

This is speaking about transgressing the moral code in the law of Moses.

 

Thank you for clarifying what you agree with that Shiloh said.  Only problem is that Shiloh didn't provide anything to back that claim up.  I provided scripture that backs up my interpretation of the reason for this passage. 

[alphaparticle]

The 'no tattoo' thing appears to be a point of law that applied to the Israelites. I don't see how it is appropriate to apply that to anything else. It doesnt' strike me as true to the context at all.

[Guest Butero]

I think those churches that say women should never cut their hair are being ultra careful because they don't want to take a chance on anyone committing sin.  The older women in the UPC churches often times have their hair in a bun. 

[Guest Butero]

The no tattoo thing depends on how you view it.  I view it as a moral law, not to print marks on our body, and I believe the Lord revealed to me that the devil is inspiring the tattoo craze as a way of changing our natural God given image that he hates.  He is causing us to defile our temple.  That is what I believe the Lord showed me.  Lets look at the other possibility Alphaparticle.  Lets say it was a law of separation.  Then you may be right.  I wouldn't take any chances, but if you feel different, be my guest and cover yourself with ink. 

[firestormx]

Firestorm, The correct Biblical definition of sin is found in 1 John 3:4

 

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law:  for sin is the transgression of the law.

 

This is speaking about transgressing the moral code in the law of Moses.

 

Thank you for clarifying what you agree with that Shiloh said.  Only problem is that Shiloh didn't provide anything to back that claim up.  I provided scripture that backs up my interpretation of the reason for this passage. 

If this is talking about only transgressing the moral code then how did Adam and Eve sin in the garden of Eden? I understand the word Law in that verse to mean God's  revealed will and word. It is the only meaning that covers everything from Genesis to Revelations. Thanks for the conversation about this, it is always edifying to speak with you.

[Ezra]

 Romans 14:1-4

Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

Let's take this and see if it applies to long hair and tattoos for starters.  First of all it is dealing with those who are "weak in the faith".  Those who promote the application of tattoos on Christians do not believe they are weak in the faith, since they are not willing to stop and consider what they are doing, or listen to what others have to say about this.  They believe they have every right to go ahead (as the pastor mentioned in this thread).  Since he is a pastor, he does not consider himself weak in the faith, and neither do those around him.

 

Secondly, it applies to "doubtful disputations" or "disputable matters".  There is nothing disputable about the fact the the NT forbids long hair on men, and there is nothing disputable about the fact that it is the heathen who mark their bodies, and God's people are forbidden to do so in OT Scripture.  The connection between tattos and heathenism is indisputable also.

 

The general principle is the New Testament is that if a stronger brother or sister sees a confused or unruly brother or sister getting out of line, they have a duty and responsibility to correct them, help them get on the right track, or even rebuke them if necessary (1 Thess 5:14).  Rebuke is an expression of love. The Lord says "As many as I love, I REBUKE and chasten".  So there is nothing un-Christian about pointing out the sins and errors of others so that they will conform to Christian truth and Christian standards.  Today's "politically correct" atmosphere tells us to simply overlook everything, but Scripture tells us to overlook nothing (either in ourselves or other believers).

[alphaparticle]

The no tattoo thing depends on how you view it.  I view it as a moral law, not to print marks on our body, and I believe the Lord revealed to me that the devil is inspiring the tattoo craze as a way of changing our natural God given image that he hates.  He is causing us to defile our temple.  That is what I believe the Lord showed me.  Lets look at the other possibility Alphaparticle.  Lets say it was a law of separation.  Then you may be right.  I wouldn't take any chances, but if you feel different, be my guest and cover yourself with ink. 

I don't see how it violates the body as a temple to have a tattoo. That verse in the NT seems to be, in context, about moral issues. Using that to argue against tattoos is therefore circular.

 

That being said, fundamentally I may actually agree with you. If you feel that you'd be violating God's desires for us by getting a tattoo, right or wrong, you probably shouldn't be doing that. Perhaps the arguments in 1 cor 8 would apply here.