A Long Hair, Tattoo Pastor

[hmbld]

That doesn't say anything about looking on a woman to lust.  There is a difference in lust and coveting someone else's wife.  It may be a single woman I am lusting after, but I happen to be married. 

 

Maybe I don't understand word meaning, but to me lust is included?

[hmbld]

Butero, I disagree with you on some things, but I absolutely love your conviction!  God bless you!

[hmbld]

But I can lust after a single woman and not be guilty of coveting.  She doesn't belong to another man, so I am not coveting someone else's anything, but I am still committing adultery in my heart.  Do you want to argue it is ok to lust, so long as the woman is single? 

 

"or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

 

Does not matter single or married, it is wrong according to this verse in old testament.

[hmbld]

Is she not under her father?

[enoob57]

Well you like the other have not afforded me the answer to my question so I can only assume you don't know... thus my reply:

 

You are not taking God's Word as a whole Enoob.  You are ignoring a New Testament teaching by trying to make out like it contradicts other scriptures, therefore making it null and void.  I could just as easily turn the tables on you and say your scripture application must be wrong as it contradicts 1 Corinthians.

There was no Scripture application it is merely as it is... so the only apparent answer is

long hair in and of itself cannot be wrong as taught us in the law by God! Because God has

placed (not wrong) and (wrong) together we logically know this cannot be for reasoning

to even exist...thus there is a difference in topic of long hair Paul is speaking of -therefore

we begin to search for the reasoning with God in His Word.

 

As far as the Nazarite vow goes, that is an Old Testament practice.  I can't find a single instance of God asking anyone to place themselves under such a vow in the New Testament   As a matter of fact, Jesus taught that we shouldn't vow anything, but let our answers be yea, yea, or nea, nea.  What do you do with that Enoob?

This really get us no where to the discussion at hand for even the milk drinkers know the

difference from OT law to NT grace...

 

"The whole of scripture must be consumed upon the contextual gravity of each place then the whole of God's Word will become clearer!"  You have chosen to ignore New Testament teachings in favor of Old Testament practices.  You haven't made anything clear from God's Word.  Where is the clarity Enoob?  You call it making the Word clear by ignoring a New Testament teaching because you claim it contradicts an Old Testament scripture, and you give no justification for ignoring the New Testament teaching.  That is hardly making the Word clear.

What scholarship has found in the histories of Corinth that it was a perverse sex centered place

housing temples where every kind of sexual agenda might be found... Rome as us now today had fallen

into men burning with men and it was common place for these effeminate (long haired) made up to be

women boys and men for satisfying Romans in their much popular choice at that time. For the past 3 or 4

emperors were clearly homosexual and probably added to the acceptance of such behavior (surmise on

my part)but I think sound... Here I believe Paul is referring to in this passage

1 Cor 11:14-15

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man

have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her:

for her hair is given her for a covering.

KJV

Notice Paul places this long hair event with that of a comparative with women yet Sampson was no

women! Thus supporting the cultural address Paul is speaking of is long hair to portray effeminate

qualities to man or boy ... and there is not one man from that time to now who would not agree that

is a shame to the very gender of manhood! Love, Steven

[enoob57]

That makes no sense Enoob because we have homosexuals all over the place today.  If it was about men being effeminate, then they would still be effeminate if they have long hair today.  If it was so they wouldn't entice homosexuals, the same thing would most certainly apply today.  If long hair is associated with being effeminate, then Samson was effeminate, and we know that was not the case.  The long hair on a man or short hair on a woman is a sign of rebellion against authority, against their spiritual head.  That is what the passage teaches.  It is not a sin issue, but is does indicate a heart problem.  As such, I would never judge a man with long hair or a woman with short hair to be unsaved, but I wouldn't look to them as leaders. 

 

I did answer your example of Samson.  Long hair on a man was not called a shame until the New Testament, just like the Old Testament never says that simple lust after a woman you are not married to is adultery in your heart.  That is also a New Testament teaching, so yes, it can be a shame today, when it was not a shame then.  Again, we are not talking about a sin issue.  It is a sign of what is going on in our heart.

You probably missed the understanding as you are deadlocked in your own reasoning... Love, Steven

[missmuffet]

That makes no sense Enoob because we have homosexuals all over the place today.  If it was about men being effeminate, then they would still be effeminate if they have long hair today.  If it was so they wouldn't entice homosexuals, the same thing would most certainly apply today.  If long hair is associated with being effeminate, then Samson was effeminate, and we know that was not the case.  The long hair on a man or short hair on a woman is a sign of rebellion against authority, against their spiritual head.  That is what the passage teaches.  It is not a sin issue, but is does indicate a heart problem.  As such, I would never judge a man with long hair or a woman with short hair to be unsaved, but I wouldn't look to them as leaders. 

 

I did answer your example of Samson.  Long hair on a man was not called a shame until the New Testament, just like the Old Testament never says that simple lust after a woman you are not married to is adultery in your heart.  That is also a New Testament teaching, so yes, it can be a shame today, when it was not a shame then.  Again, we are not talking about a sin issue.  It is a sign of what is going on in our heart. 

I am a woman and I have very short hair and I am not in rebellion to authority.In fact it is just the opposite.I find that wearing my hair short is convenient and comfortable and I am not going to go to hell because I wear my hair short.And I am not a masculine or butchy sort of lady.And my heart has been given to God 100%.

[hmbld]

I fail to find your argument on long hair to be supported by scripture. If it was it would have been a shame for Sampson. Or a shame for women who have their hair fall out for natural or cancer treatment reasons. Trying to change the appearance of gender is the issue. I used to buy into it being right to wear a suit to church, though I have never owned one. Bring your best before God and all that. I felt people looked down on me for how I dressed. Could God be so concerned about our hair or clothing?

[enoob57]

exactly hmbld for it is specific in Scripture

Matt 6:31-34

31 "Therefore do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or

                                      'What shall we wear?' 

32 For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that 

you need all these things. 33 But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness,

and all these things shall be added to you. 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow,

for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.

NKJV

Matt 6:25

25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what

ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than

meat, and the body than raiment?

KJV

we are to be focused on being the vessels of God's righteousness that He has placed there

within us ->for our showing forth to an unrighteous world... Love, Steven

[Floatingaxe]

I was a satanist before I became a christian and got a tattoo on my upper left arm of a inverted pentagram. It is a symbol that today is representative of Satan and the satanic church.  Now as A christian I don't have the money to get it removed and would not get it removed even if I did. Because to me, every time I look at the star on my arm all I see, all I am reminded of every time I see it is , that there is nothing God can't save me from. To me, this star on my arm has become a symbol of the power of deliverance of Jesus Christ.  

 

God bless you---Jesus is our deliverer, and the past that is visible to many in the tattoos received before Christ are a testament to the changed life, the new creature you have become!