Vomit is all the things you describe, but is vomit a sin?
It's not heaven or hell, bro Epley.
It is used as a symbolic representation of sin, in this passage of scripture:
II Peter 2:20-22
For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
Oh no!! Women who cut their hair are going to get killed!!!! Gasp!!!! Good grief. Talk about scare tactics.
I want to revisit this post briefly, and the mindset it represents.
There is no more insidious brand of legalism than the kind that seeks to turn the New Testament into just another rule book.
In other words, if it isn't expressly forbideen by name in the NT, it is fair game and all right.
For our good sister to look at my post and instead of seeing a principle, to see a legalistic interpretation and a death threat, reveals the way the Scripture looks to those who don't view it through the eyes of grace.
You see, grace is a teacher. Paul revealed that truth in Titus.
Grace enables you to see a principle beyond the literal.
Thank God for the grace that saves us from a legalistic view!
Forget heaven or hell--do you want to do something God feels that way about?
Somebody help me out here.
God doesn't feel like vomiting when a woman cuts her hair, not is God shamed by such an action.
The woman is shamed by having her head shorn or shaven. That means her head is void of any hair. This isn't equatable to cutting her hair at all, and I honestly can't understand how someone gets that idea from reading what Paul said.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
It is used as a symbolic representation of sin, in this passage of scripture:
II Peter 2:20-22
For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
That does not mean shame is a sin, though.
Are you actually saying shame is still a sin based upon this reasoning that physical vomit is filthy and disgusting, and since the bible uses it to represent sin therefore it is correct to say that a shame is a sin?
Imagine the ludicrous doctrines we could come up with using that logic! The bible says Paul counted all his Hebraic heridity as dung compared to knowing Christ (Phil 3). What does that say about dung using that reasoning? Dung is filthy as well. Does that mean dung is sin? Does that mean Paul's heredity is sin?
Forget heaven or hell--do you want to do something God feels that way about?
Somebody help me out here.
I believe God considers long hair on a woman to be glorious. And I think He'd rather see it. I never argued that when I noted that it is not heaven or hell. I just said it is not heaven or hell like it is being promoted with some folks. Let's not add to the Word. God simply said long hair is a glory to a woman. Does that make it a heaven or hell issue?
Linear Mode
