What do you think of tattoos? [Archive] - Page 2

Dysarrae

3rd March 2004, 01:24 AM

Disclaimer: I don't think tats are sinful in themselves.

Having said that, I would comment that, regardless of how God doesn't want us judging by the outward appearance, people in general do anyway. One of the reasons that the Bible tells us to refrain from "the appearance of evil" is so that believers will not be judged wicked based upon appearances. When you go get a job, it is much harder to get one if you have green, spiked hair, multiple piercings, and tats. Some of that is people judging you bad by appearance, some of it is good business -- after all, if you run a law firm, you don't want the receptionist to look freakish and scare clients away. Most people don't assume rapist or child molester, rather someone on on the shady side of the law like a thief or a violent person. Loud symbols of "individuality" (another subject) tend to have people at least think you are a rebellious sort -- because many of these fashions start out as that in the first place. Until they become COMPLETELY mainstream, it is unlikely they will be judged otherwise. Wrong or right, this is what happens and we have to live with it. Isn't it wisdom to put as FEW stumbling blocks out there as possible -- especially since we represent Christ? If you have the chance to preach to a high-society lady some day, wouldn't it be easier if you at least looked normal -- even if you look poor? A person who just looks normal can talk to anyone at all, where extremes in appearance close many doors.

How do you define normal? Personally, I don't believe in such a thing. And growing up where I have, and going to college where I do...I know that while yes, sometimes looking outlandish in that way can cause problems, I work in a preschool, and I'm not the only teacher with a tattoo or piercing, and no one there has any problems with it, we don't scare the kids or their parents. Secondly, I never plan on working in a law firm, I'm an artist...we tend to be accepted and get jobs looking as freaky and out there as marylin manson...or David Bowie as Ziggy Stardust...and my tattoo is on my back and usually mostly covered, if not always covered.

porcupine

3rd March 2004, 03:14 AM

How do you define normal? Personally, I don't believe in such a thing. And growing up where I have, and going to college where I do...I know that while yes, sometimes looking outlandish in that way can cause problems, I work in a preschool, and I'm not the only teacher with a tattoo or piercing, and no one there has any problems with it, we don't scare the kids or their parents. Secondly, I never plan on working in a law firm, I'm an artist...we tend to be accepted and get jobs looking as freaky and out there as marylin manson...or David Bowie as Ziggy Stardust...and my tattoo is on my back and usually mostly covered, if not always covered.

Like I said, when something becomes completely mainstream . . . and the mainstream differs depending on where you are. There are always exceptions, but in the wider world, those exceptions get harder to live with. Earning low wages in a day care is not the same as having to represent a company that deals with large numbers. Exceptions don't make the rule, they prove the rule. Please don't give me the "What's normal?" business. You know very well what I mean. Go in with your tats showing and facial piercings and try for a job as a bank teller or a retail sales person at I. Magnin.

Dysarrae

3rd March 2004, 12:29 PM

Like I said, when something becomes completely mainstream . . . and the mainstream differs depending on where you are. There are always exceptions, but in the wider world, those exceptions get harder to live with. Earning low wages in a day care is not the same as having to represent a company that deals with large numbers. Exceptions don't make the rule, they prove the rule. Please don't give me the "What's normal?" business. You know very well what I mean. Go in with your tats showing and facial piercings and try for a job as a bank teller or a retail sales person at I. Magnin.

Ok, first of all, I never said I have facial piercings...I don't, I have my cartilage done. And second, I don't make low wages in a day care...I make well above minimum wage in a PRESCHOOL! There is a difference between day care and pre-school. And third...people with tattoos are just as likely to get a retail job. I have friends with tattoos and piercings who work in retail. It's not the wider world...it's the conservative world...

porcupine

3rd March 2004, 03:57 PM

Okay, keep what you've got.

Shannonkish

3rd March 2004, 07:34 PM

By the way... I work at a Counseling Firm... making $15.00 an hour... (I am also a full time student) and guess what... I have a tattoo.. and my boss knows it.. and loves it.. The stipulations... none.. I just have to wear business attire.. if I choose to cover it, I can... it is on my ankle so it is not that hard to cover and also not that noticeable.

Porcupine... I don't think you are too convincing...

Beanface

3rd March 2004, 09:22 PM

You ar 18. You have no clue as to how your body will change and warp that tat -- cool or not. Nor do you understand that you are making a PERMANENT change in your body while you are yet immature.

No, I don't know how my body will change. but It's going in a place that does not stretch or grow much. not like on my arm or chest. And I've had pictures of it plastered all over my room, few places at home, my locker, in teh car, for almost 2 years. I did this to ensure I'm not gonna get bored of it any time soon. I've seen it for hours every day for 2 years, and I still love it.

porcupine

3rd March 2004, 09:24 PM

porcupine

3rd March 2004, 09:26 PM

No, I don't know how my body will change. but It's going in a place that does not stretch or grow much. not like on my arm or chest. And I've had pictures of it plastered all over my room, few places at home, my locker, in teh car, for almost 2 years. I did this to ensure I'm not gonna get bored of it any time soon. I've seen it for hours every day for 2 years, and I still love it.

Same as I said to Shannon.

Shannonkish

3rd March 2004, 09:39 PM

porcupine... what is done is done... even if I wanted to get rid of my tattoo... which I by no means want to... I couldn't... so it is over with.

Beanface

3rd March 2004, 09:49 PM

Good point shannon. Doesn't apply to me... yet... but in 2 weeks, it won't matter whether I want it still ornot, cuz it's there :)

jepvc4

4th March 2004, 01:24 AM

Let's talk again when you are 40 or 45.

1 Timothy 4:12 - Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith, and in purity.

I believe that Shannonkish is doing this wholeheartedly, porcupine, and I believe you are wrong to be judgemental of her because of her age. And before you protest, yes you are being judgemental. Please stop using the, "Just so you know, I don't think it's a sin.....but you should listen to me because I'm older," argument. I personally, as someone who's 21, feel that's what you are doing, and it's divisive.

Also

1 Corinthians 9:19 - 23 - Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I becaome like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law, I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have became all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

To me, this tells me that by the things we do and the personalities we have, we are able to reach unique people groups. Someone who say, is into motorcycles and has a few very obvious tattoos about Christ on their arms is able to readily fit in with a people group of bikers. I am not saying they must get the tattoos to fit in, but it will not hinder them, and it can act as a catalyst for witnessing.

Later in 1 Corinthians, 10:31-33 - So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God - even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so they may be saved.

If Shannonkish's tattoo was a direct hindrance to someone's salvation, or growth in Christ, then I would say that it is wrong. But I see no evidence of the sort. It would be different perhaps if she is older, and it is a little less common to find a 40 to 50 year old woman with a tattoo in this present day. However, her's is very subtle and concealed; I do not think that it would be something someone would see straight away and decide, "Wow, what a rebellious punk kid." Because it is out of the way, most people probably get to know her very well before they find out she has a tattoo. Have you ever found out something startling about a close friend, but because you were already close the fact did not bother you? I am guessing such is the case here.

Whew. There's been a lot of arguing since I put my LAST two cents in. Here's two more, for a total of four cents of my mind. Well, this post here feels more like a nickel than two cents ;)

Shannonkish

4th March 2004, 01:48 AM

Thank you for that jep. I appreciate it. Something I wanted to add.... God does not bring upon condemnation... but conviction... If there is something that I have done wrong, then God convicts me.. but I don't feel condemned about it. In this sense, God has not convicted me in any way.. nor do I feel condemned.

My tattoo is a symbol, of a lot deeper meaning than I can go into on these boards. It is a reminder. People wear symbols... Christians, the cross. Some people wear butterfiles to remind them that they are new creations. Some where anchors, to remind them that they are anchored in Christ. Others wear a wedding ring, a symbol of a commitment and covenant that they made with their spouse.

I know of one couple that instead of buying wedding rings, they had them tattooed on their ring fingers. Why? Because they felt that their covenant was a bond that couldn't be broken.. and because of that, they didn't want to wear a symbol that could so easily be lost, or taken off, or ruined... instead their tattoo is permanent, signifying their covenant.

My tattoo has similar reasoning... although, again, there is a LOT more to it than just this. My tattoo is a Cross and a Dagger, one and the same. Both mean something very significant to me. Much like the wedding rings, the cross is a symbol of the covenant that I have with my God. It is a visual reminder to me of the price he paid for me and the covenant we have together. The dagger means something else, which I will not reveal on the website... Together my tattoo is a symbol to me, that can't be washed off, can't be broken, and can't be destroyed. My tattoo is a mark of my maker. A mark that shows who I belong to. Some people choose to wear a cross around their neck... however, in my ministry, I can't openly display that I am a Christian from the beginning, I will close a lot of doors that way.. instead the method that God gave me, is to love people, and through that love the doors to their hearts will be open and I will be free to share with them a love much greater than my own..

When I am 40-50, I will have other things to worry about than simply my tattoo.. I don't wake up every morning and think.. "Oh yes, I have a tattoo." As a matter of fact, sometimes I forget it is there.. until I put lotion on.. but even still... My tattoo is not a hinderance in any way to my ministry or my growth in Christ.

Morrissey

4th March 2004, 01:49 AM

I can't see myself and in general I don't like them, but I don't see a problem with getting them, or why getting the tattoo itself would be anti-Christian.

porcupine

4th March 2004, 02:47 AM

1 Timothy 4:12 - Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith, and in purity.

I believe that Shannonkish is doing this wholeheartedly, porcupine, and I believe you are wrong to be judgemental of her because of her age. And before you protest, yes you are being judgemental. Please stop using the, "Just so you know, I don't think it's a sin.....but you should listen to me because I'm older," argument. I personally, as someone who's 21, feel that's what you are doing, and it's divisive.

Also

1 Corinthians 9:19 - 23 - Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I becaome like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law, I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have became all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

To me, this tells me that by the things we do and the personalities we have, we are able to reach unique people groups. Someone who say, is into motorcycles and has a few very obvious tattoos about Christ on their arms is able to readily fit in with a people group of bikers. I am not saying they must get the tattoos to fit in, but it will not hinder them, and it can act as a catalyst for witnessing.

Later in 1 Corinthians, 10:31-33 - So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God - even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so they may be saved.

If Shannonkish's tattoo was a direct hindrance to someone's salvation, or growth in Christ, then I would say that it is wrong. But I see no evidence of the sort. It would be different perhaps if she is older, and it is a little less common to find a 40 to 50 year old woman with a tattoo in this present day. However, her's is very subtle and concealed; I do not think that it would be something someone would see straight away and decide, "Wow, what a rebellious punk kid." Because it is out of the way, most people probably get to know her very well before they find out she has a tattoo. Have you ever found out something startling about a close friend, but because you were already close the fact did not bother you? I am guessing such is the case here.

Whew. There's been a lot of arguing since I put my LAST two cents in. Here's two more, for a total of four cents of my mind. Well, this post here feels more like a nickel than two cents ;)

That's a quarter -- remember inflation.

You can use the instruction to Timoty if you like, but it is not universal. If someone is as mature as he was, fine, but most youth (or even adults) are not. The only thing I argue is that most people will regret having them. I am hoping to get people to reconsider BEFORE getting one.

Shannonkish

4th March 2004, 04:06 AM

You can use the instruction to Timoty if you like, but it is not universal. If someone is as mature as he was, fine, but most youth (or even adults) are not. The only thing I argue is that most people will regret having them. I am hoping to get people to reconsider BEFORE getting one.

Are you insinuating that I am not mature enough?

Your claim of thinking about it beforehand is all good and well.. but you continue to press that issue to those of us that HAVE thought about it and HAVE tattoos. I HAVE thought about it... I thought about it for 3 years before deciding to get a tattoo, and guess what, my mind didn't change.

I apologize if this comes off rude or whatever, but really... you are preaching to the choir...

jepvc4

4th March 2004, 04:33 AM

If someone is as mature as he was, fine, but most youth (or even adults) are not.

Personally, you sound like a kid who is trying to shout louder in order to win their argument.

The only thing I argue is that most people will regret having them. I am hoping to get people to reconsider BEFORE getting one.

I think that's fine, except the part of reconsidering. Trying to get people to reconsider does two things; it presupposes that a tattoo is wrong, and therefore conflicts with your saying you do not believe they are a sin (I know, this is arguing semantics, I think that's the word at least). For the record, I do support you porcupine, up to a point. I think you are very correct about thinking things through extremely well, because of such factors as witnessability and future appearance. I think, however, that I have provided good arguments for my views already. I also think that it is a matter of conviction, and I can tell you are strongly convicted against tattoos, and that's fine. What I am not in support of is that you do not seem to see that Shannonkish has thoroughly thought out the decision to get a tattoo (three years of thought), has gotten one which can (and has) been used for God's glory, in accordance with that command in 1 Corinthians to do everything for God's glory (thus preventing you from being able to persuade her not to get a tattoo), and is not concerned with its future appearance. As she herself said, you seem to be preaching to the choir on this, it is after the fact and it was not done errantly. And once more, you seem more divisive than you do edifying and loving, which is what our purpose on these forums should be, in accordance with fellowship.

Are you insinuating that I am not mature enough?

If that is the case, then I think maybe you need to step down from the pious pedalstool you are on. Welcome to the year 2004... things that were not common in the 1950s, are becoming more common today. We live in a POSTmodern society... techniques, and ways of ministry are different for this generation than they were for your generation. The times have changed. What was evil/bad for your generation may or may not be evil/bad in today's society.

I'm sorry Shannon, but this was just rude. Now you're putting him down for being 50+ years old! Lets all calm down here. Is there any way we can end the argument lovingly while not compromising each other's convictions?

And Shannon, if his arguments are getting old, stop arguing. Then the thread will die on its own.

James

Shannonkish

4th March 2004, 04:46 AM

i apologize, it was edited.

jepvc4

4th March 2004, 12:20 PM

Cool :)

UK_Personality

5th March 2004, 03:43 PM

Getting a tatoo... making holes in yourself and filling them with ink. Doesn't really serve a purpouse. However if people want to uselessly maul themselves in ways such as these they have every right to. If Fred Brown, for Example, wanted to hack his arm off with a blunk meat cleaver and hang it on his wall then fine. Doesn't harm anyone else does it? Same with tattoos me thinks. ho ho.

Mitch

5th March 2004, 04:38 PM

I think this is like the place in the bible were it say one man eats all things and another eats only fruit

jepvc4

5th March 2004, 04:45 PM

I think people should read most of this thread so that the argument doesn't end up going in circles.

Mitch

5th March 2004, 05:12 PM

THAT'S 275 POST!!! :sick:

Shannonkish

5th March 2004, 06:31 PM

I think people should read most of this thread so that the argument doesn't end up going in circles.

I most heartedly agree. :)

Mods, can we lock this Forum since we have gone in circles for the last 7 pages.

UK_Personality

5th March 2004, 07:23 PM

Read most of this thread? over 275 posts is gonna take a while so frankly i can't be bothered. I'm Irish y'know... i'd be wasting good drinking time(JK).

jepvc4

5th March 2004, 07:46 PM

porcupine

5th March 2004, 10:12 PM

Well, in my opinion, threads are used for discussion, and the chat room for talk. I understand that everyone wants to put their two cents in, but if everyone is saying the same thing, then the thread ends up being this large and unmanageable except to those already active to the thread. If you don't at least look over the thread before posting, its like opening your mouth in the middle of a conversation you don't understand.

Wouldn't be simpler for those who started out with the thread and see that the arguments are being recycled by new people simply drop out and lett the new people discuss -- even if the arguments were used by others before?

jepvc4

5th March 2004, 11:37 PM

True :)

msrene

7th March 2004, 08:25 PM

Been going through all the posts and it seems that it pretty much divides up like this

a) Not to do it because of the passage in Leviticus
b) Not against them - but not for them because of the needles
c) See no problem

The Leviticus point I somewhat question because it is not clear that it is ref. to tattos as is claimed by some.

I can somewhat understand the thing about needles. Personal experience has shown me that it didn't hurt at all, nor was it painful.

Don't totally agree with the thought that it is totally ok - because of the questionable verses within Lev.

I have them. Would I do it again? More than likely NOT - but then - I see no need to get them removed either.

I most def. do not see it as something that would be the determination of if a person is a Christian or not. Most people that I know that have them got them way before they ever became a Christian to begin with.

tampabuck

8th March 2004, 01:21 AM

I myself would not get one, but I think we should concentrate on what is in the heart and not on their skin(outward appearance). I truly believe God looks into the heart.

I know Christians who have tattoos, and I have no problem with it. I would prefer that no one had tattoos, because I don't personally get it.

Of course I don't get jewelry either, such as a diamond engagment ring. Seems pretty useless to me. Maybe a tattoo would be a better replacement.

In our current culture, people are more concerned with the cost of the ring, versus the meaning behind it. Maybe having to get a tattoo, would really make people think about making a 'lifelong' decision.

TrustNo1

13th March 2004, 06:27 AM

i would like to get a tattoo one my arm of a cross. i think one tattoo on a femals small of her back is sexy as long as it is small and not some big evil looking thing. or on their ankle. i dont think i could stand the pain though so i dont think i will get one.

Spurgeon

14th March 2004, 01:28 AM

Ink on the skin? Why not? If ink on the skin were a problem, would house painters be doomed? What about coal miners?

ps139

14th March 2004, 05:57 PM

I saw someone with a tattoo on his entire back of Jesus carrying His Cross up to Calvary.
It was beautiful. I asked him about it, he said he has it because he knows "Jesus has always got my back."

I do not have a tattoo but if I did get one it would be to glorify God.

Outcasts4JC

14th March 2004, 06:01 PM

I think tattoos, as well as piercings, are rad. i plan on tattooing the majority of my body. All of my tats will have specific meaning and glorify God. I am also going to pierce myself a lot.

AngelOfLove

21st March 2004, 08:59 PM

i think they are kinda wrong because your body is your temple and you arent supposed to damage it and tattooing it is damaging it :angel:

†Neil†

22nd March 2004, 02:22 AM

temple of God hey... so what is your belief about graffiti allowed by churches on their walls that shows God in an artistic way? is that not the same as tattooing?

Outcasts4JC

22nd March 2004, 03:20 AM

yeah...im not liking the legalism im hearing from some of you...sure its ok to say that something s wrong for you to do as an individual, but you cant go around telling other peopel that things they are doing are completely wrong or evil. and sure levticus says no tattoos, but check out your shirt tag, chances are it is made of more than one material, so thus you are breaking one of God's laws from leviticus right there.

sammipher

22nd March 2004, 04:08 AM

I don't agree with having tattoos...since I have been saved and I have been studying the bible...I would find it hard to get one. Though when I was a teenager I came close on a couple of spring breaks to getting one...had wanting to eat the rest of the week not been an option I may have came home with one....Thank the Lord most teenagers don't have lots of money...theres no telling what I would look like today..lol.

elijahlexis

22nd March 2004, 05:25 AM

good question
not so easy as the 4 given options for answers
i have tatoos
several
and i got some of them for all the wrong reasons
because i could
i liked them
it was cool
many years after getting tattoos
i decided that i was sick of hearing all the "wicked tat dude" stuff and all that
so i put a verse under both the tattoos i had (a snake and an eagle) Luke 10:19 &
Isaiah 40:31
now i would say that they glorify God, and are a testimony to Him
i hear all the stuff about not destroying or marking Gods temple
it is His temple
He did put it on me to care for the temple so to speak
i really don't believe that one can judge another for tattoos or peircings or whatever
only God can judge
i believe that the condition of the heart of the man (or woman) has everything to do with whether it is "o.k." or not
God sets up and God puts down
although that had i not had tattoos i don't think that i would get one now
the fact that i already have them has put me in a place where they need to glorify God
as do i, in everything, mind body, spirit........
and i did get a new one recently
on my back
POD album cover
an angel with satan in a headlock
crush the thug or snuff the punk is the name of the album
will put it on my profile if i can scan my back (lol)
anyways,
great topic, need so much more time and space
looking forward to reading all the other replies to this question
peace,
don

elijahlexis

22nd March 2004, 05:36 AM

i was also thinking
who are those in the church that don't approve of tats trying to say that we with tats are looking "bad or unchristian" to ??
i ain't looking to impress the church at large
i am concerned with reaching the lost and leading them to God through CHrist
the lost and dieing and those that are going to hell without the Hope that is Jesus won't be looking at my tats,
mainly just the self justified folks
just an opinion
but i see so many people that stay out of the "church" at large because of the legalism's such as these
glorify God in all that you do and with all your heart mind soul and body
scars (tats are sort of scars) are just a testimony of something that happened in the past afterall
just what i believe
blessings
don

missiondocsda

22nd March 2004, 06:55 AM

Does the bible say that we should not have tatoos? It does in the old testament and there is no question to be asked when it comes to new testament, Jesus was never been asked about tatoos, it is common sense, and it is very much up to personal favor and judgement.

If I have been saved and I have tatoos attached along, what can I do? I leave everything to the Lord, and I have the passion to help others to the One, praise the Lord! For the Lost is now seeks to glorify the kingdom to come.

But it will never have any degree of freedom of negotiation that it is 'okay'. Bodies are temples of the Lord, the way you treat your bodies, the same way you will do so in Heaven.

Big C

22nd March 2004, 12:05 PM

I personally don't have a problem with tattoos from an artistic standpoint. I used to do tattoos and have right-left sleaves,neck,back,chest and stomach tattoos (mostly before I got saved). However, after I accepted CHRIST I got 2COR5:17 tacked across the front of my neck and a holy bible on my forearm. I've been getting my gang tattoos lightened by laser then tacked over with a Christian theme once it heals.
My opinion on this topic is..."if you have tattoos, try to glorify CHRIST or something truly relevent to you life (kids, ect); but if you don't have tattoos, perhaps you should stick to some really cool temporary tats. :confused:

AngelOfLove

22nd March 2004, 06:59 PM

no i really dont think a church should have graffiti on any church wall either. its God's house

†Neil†

23rd March 2004, 02:16 AM

church is not God's house. You can have church anywhere. the building doesn't make a church or God's house it is the people in it. Ive had church beside a lake, in a house, in a playground, on a bus, in a homeless shelter so the house of God rubbish is rubbish.

Niz

23rd March 2004, 02:51 AM

what about christian tattoos? what do people think of them. I have a christian fish tattoo on my left arm and a cross on my right. anyone want to see them i have pics somewhere on my pooter i can show ya them =]

Krystina661

23rd March 2004, 02:53 AM

I don't see anything wrong with that.. :angel:

TasManOfGod

23rd March 2004, 03:22 AM

Tats and body piercing (even ears) come into a category that does not have favour with God- mutilation of the flesh
Am I against anybody who has had this done to them ? No, and neither should you be . Jesus has redeemed them as He has you for your sins. However as none of us should go back to our past sins neither should the believer be "proud" of their body graffiti or their peircings.
As for having "christian" tats surely this is an abomination
There are stories I have heard of genuine remorse of having tats and of these supernaturally disappearing.

What I am saying is that my attitude is what I believe God's is - Love the person, hate the tats (and the extra holes)

1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

1Co 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

blessing
Tas

Shannonkish

23rd March 2004, 05:17 AM

1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

1Co 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Still not seeing the relevance of that verse... as a matter of fact... If you want to take that verse... let's apply it to EVERY area of our lives..

Do you eat fast food? It's not healthy for your body.
Do you drink Soda? Again, not healthy
Are you over weight/under weight? Not taking good care of that temple are ya?
Do you get EXACTLY the right amount of sleep EVERY night? Doubt it.
Do you live without stress on a daily basis? Yeah, right.
Do you/have you ever colored your hair? possible
Do you/have you ever clipped your nails? most likely, yes
Do you/have you ever cut your hair? most definitely, yes
Do you exercise routinely? could go either way on that one.
Do you eat healthy 100% of the time? doubtful
Do you ever get sick? yes, everyone does
Do you live in a city that has smog? possible
Have you ever smelled gas fumes or paint fumes? yes, they kill brain cells.
Have you ever be exposed to radiation? If you own a microwave, or a cell phone, yes.

A LOT of things are damaging to your "Temple." If we took this verse to the legalistic extreme you are expecting us to take it to... you would have to abstain from LOTS of things that can't necessarily be controlled by you.. such as sickness, amount of stress, amount of sleep, etc.

This verse, when taken in context, is not as legalistic as some make it out to be.

My tattoo is not harmful to my body in any way. There were/are no side affects from my tattoo... and I have had it for several years now.

Anonymous Pam

23rd March 2004, 06:52 AM

Ok ...looks like I goofed here..:help: I posted twice without realising it.

Anonymous Pam

23rd March 2004, 06:58 AM

For myself, I don't think I'd want one. As a christian I think it could be miss-unstood by un-believers.

Neenie

23rd March 2004, 07:23 AM

For myself, I don't think I'd want one. As a christian I think it could be miss-unstood by un-believers.

The'll probably think your normal :)

TasManOfGod

23rd March 2004, 07:30 AM

The'll probably think your normal :)
Eph 5:8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:

Eph 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)

Eph 5:10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.

Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

Eph 5:12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

Eph 5:13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

Eph 5:14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

blessing
Tas

†Neil†

23rd March 2004, 07:32 AM

Still not seeing the relevance of that verse... as a matter of fact... If you want to take that verse... let's apply it to EVERY area of our lives..

Do you eat fast food? It's not healthy for your body.
Do you drink Soda? Again, not healthy
Are you over weight/under weight? Not taking good care of that temple are ya?
Do you get EXACTLY the right amount of sleep EVERY night? Doubt it.
Do you live without stress on a daily basis? Yeah, right.
Do you/have you ever colored your hair? possible
Do you/have you ever clipped your nails? most likely, yes
Do you/have you ever cut your hair? most definitely, yes
Do you exercise routinely? could go either way on that one.
Do you eat healthy 100% of the time? doubtful
Do you ever get sick? yes, everyone does
Do you live in a city that has smog? possible
Have you ever smelled gas fumes or paint fumes? yes, they kill brain cells.
Have you ever be exposed to radiation? If you own a microwave, or a cell phone, yes.

A LOT of things are damaging to your "Temple." If we took this verse to the legalistic extreme you are expecting us to take it to... you would have to abstain from LOTS of things that can't necessarily be controlled by you.. such as sickness, amount of stress, amount of sleep, etc.

This verse, when taken in context, is not as legalistic as some make it out to be.

My tattoo is not harmful to my body in any way. There were/are no side affects from my tattoo... and I have had it for several years now.very nice post

Neenie

23rd March 2004, 07:39 AM

Eph 5:8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:

Eph 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)

Eph 5:10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.

Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

Eph 5:12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

Eph 5:13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

Eph 5:14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

blessing
Tas

Beautiful post!

For those of you who have tattoos, repent. their evil! :angel:

Shannonkish

23rd March 2004, 01:50 PM

Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

For those of you who have tattoos, repent. their evil!

I seriously hope you are kidding me.... This verse proves nothing.

"Unfruitful works of darkness" If that is the case, then Satan must really want Jamie to go to heaven, because one of the elements that led us into a discussion about Christ and about salvation was my tattoo. Jamie is someone that I would have NEVER met, had it not been for the fact that she saw my picture (of my tattoo) in the tattoo artist's portfolio and wanted to talk to me to get the design (I designed my tattoo). So, if tattoos are "unfruitful" and the "works of darkness" than when did Satan starting playing on the same team as God?

TasManOfGod

23rd March 2004, 03:13 PM

[/size]

[/color][/font]

I seriously hope you are kidding me.... This verse proves nothing.

"Unfruitful works of darkness" If that is the case, then Satan must really want Jamie to go to heaven, because one of the elements that led us into a discussion about Christ and about salvation was my tattoo. Jamie is someone that I would have NEVER met, had it not been for the fact that she saw my picture (of my tattoo) in the tattoo artist's portfolio and wanted to talk to me to get the design (I designed my tattoo). So, if tattoos are "unfruitful" and the "works of darkness" than when did Satan starting playing on the same team as God?
That is an empty argument
Adherrents to that doctrine would hold that evil is good because good can come out of it . The truth is that despite evil God can do good in the midst of it but He would prefer for there to be no evil in the first place.
It is like justifying having a car accident because you were able to witness to somebody in hospital .
Phooey
God did not cause the car accident so that person could be reached but He did use the circumstances to His glory .
It is like rubbing the devil's nose in his own vomit and every opportunity to do so should be taken.
God bless you as you continue to use the devils work for the glory of God rather than giving glory to the work of the devil.

blessing
Tas

porcupine

23rd March 2004, 03:37 PM

Maybe I should reenter this argument.

First, since we are not under the law of Moses, there is no specific prohibition of tattoos per se. It is not a sin based upon Leviticus.

Second, the argument about defiling the physical body which is the Temple is not good as both verses refer to specific things. One refers to the "body/Temple" as the corporate body (Church) and the effects of false doctrine, the other refers to the individual, physical body/Temple and the effects of "joining Christ to a harlot" through fornication. The broader version could be used to condemn having a Big Mac. No cigar on this argument.

Second Part B, the similar argument that this is "of the world" could be applied to all sorts of things -- mode of dress (maybe we need to dress as they did in New Testament times?), music (4-part harmonies or industrial anyone?), or even using modern appliances (Amish, anyone?). Still no cigar.

Third, I generally consider tats to be stupid because young, immature people tend to get them and regret it later. It is interesting to note that most of the older people who have posted on this who had tats now say they would not do it again. THIS IS NOT UNIVERSAL!!!!! However, it stands as a warning to the 16 to 26 crowd to be VERY careful.

Oblivious

23rd March 2004, 03:38 PM

Beautiful post!

For those of you who have tattoos, repent. their evil! :angel:
First off, it's they're as in they are

Secondly, I'd like to hear in more detail why I must repent for having a tattoo and how is this "evil" :confused:

Oblivious

23rd March 2004, 03:42 PM

God bless you as you continue to use the devils work for the glory of God rather than giving glory to the work of the devil.

blessing
TasAnd God bless you as you continue to judge people wrongfully for something that IS NOT EVIL NOR A SIN!!!

Give me a break already :help:

TasManOfGod

23rd March 2004, 03:46 PM

Neenie

23rd March 2004, 04:05 PM

First off, it's they're as in they are

Secondly, I'd like to hear in more detail why I must repent for having a tattoo and how is this "evil" :confused:

I was being sarcastic thats why i put the little :angel:. And earlier in the thread stated my opinion about them.

Oblivious

23rd March 2004, 04:07 PM

I was being sarcastic thats why i put the little :angel:. And earlier in the thread stated my opinion about them.Sorry my bad :sorry:

We need a sarcasm smilie on this forum

porcupine

23rd March 2004, 05:07 PM

I could only support you if I knew Jesus had tats or Paul even

Tas

Did Jesus:

Drive a car?
Use a computer?
Speak English?
Pass out tracts?
Make movies or go to them?
Wear any jewelry?
Dye His hair?
Wear pants?

TasManOfGod

23rd March 2004, 05:16 PM

Did Jesus:

Drive a car?
Use a computer?
Speak English?
Pass out tracts?
Make movies or go to them?
Wear any jewelry?
Dye His hair?
Wear pants?
Perhaps the measure is - Did He have an opportunity to mutilate His own body and did He ?

Shannonkish

23rd March 2004, 06:14 PM

Tas,

that wasn't the question... nor the argument.

Mutilate-

To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=batter)1.
To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.
So since when does tattoos fit into the Merrim Webster definition of mutilate? I still have all of my limb.. except for a toe... but I guess removing the toe in order to save the rest of me was a sin as well since according to this definition I mutilated my body...(or more correctly, according to your logic). My ankle is not disfigured or damaged because of my tattoo. And, there isn't a single person that is perfect, or whose body is perfect... and therefore anything that alters your appearance could be consider mutilation... including, but not limited to, cutting your hair, wearing makeup, cutting your fingernails/toenails... pretty much anything.

TasManOfGod

23rd March 2004, 06:31 PM

To disfigure by damaging irreparably
seems to fit OK

Shannonkish

23rd March 2004, 06:50 PM

Except--

A. My ankle is not damaged or disfigured....
B. It isn't irreparable.

Also, is it mutilating my body if I cut my fingernails? No, of course not.. however, if you don't cut them properly, such as biting them, or cutting them too short, even just once.... you can damage the nailbed and cause irreparable damage to that nail causing it to grow in a different way. Does that mean that mutilated my fingers?? Of course not.

TasManOfGod

23rd March 2004, 07:00 PM

Shannon Answer me this:
Would your face be disfigured if you tattooed a half inch wide line diagonally across it?
Does your ankle now look like it did when it left your mother's womb?

Thank you for your honesty
Tas

DontWorryBeHappy

23rd March 2004, 07:09 PM

I like to think of tats as a form of artistic expression. A few of my friends actually make a hobby out of designing their own.

Now, are naked women dancing across rippling biceps okay? Nope. But there are some awesome tats out there that are very tasteful. I don't see it as self mutilation unless you're profane with your ink.

TasManOfGod

23rd March 2004, 07:09 PM

Shannon
If you want to put nail clipping and hair cutting in the same barrell as tattooing then obviously you would have no problem in putting tattoos on your baby -- well you would cut the baby's hair and nails wouldn't you?

Tas

Shannonkish

23rd March 2004, 07:15 PM

Would your face be disfigured if you tattooed a half inch wide line diagonally across it?
Does your ankle now look like it did when it left your mother's womb?

Never had my face tattooed and don't know anyone that has had it tattooed.. sorry, can't answer that question.

However, the second one I can. My face doesn't look the same as when I came out of the womb, either does my ankles, my arms, or any other part of my body... I have grown into an adult... and am no longer a baby.. therefore I don't have the same characteristics that I had when I was born.

obviously you would have no problem in putting tattoos on your baby

Nope, not a tattoo on a baby.. but if I had a little girl, I would pierce her ears... My ears were pierced at 6 mos. of age. However, if my daughter/son wanted to get a tattoo when she/he was older, say 16, I would sign for it, as long as I approved the design...

obuchiteck

23rd March 2004, 07:19 PM

I would never putt a tattoo on my baby. It's so permanent that I would want him/her to decide there own design. I would wait at least until the age of 13.

Most of the anti tattoo verses also could be used to make the statement that I shouldn't donate organs. I guess I'm screwed. I'm going to hell in a handbasket, I have tattoos and I'm an organ donate.. I even *gasp* donate blood.

The god I worship gave me Free will, creativity and many more gifts. The god I worship loves me and gave me gifts to use. I'm using them and If my god doesn't let me into heaven because I have a tattoo, then well, I'm worshiping the wrong god.

TasManOfGod

23rd March 2004, 07:29 PM

Never had my face tattooed and don't know anyone that has had it tattooed.. sorry, can't answer that question.

However, the second one I can. My face doesn't look the same as when I came out of the womb, either does my ankles, my arms, or any other part of my body... I have grown into an adult... and am no longer a baby.. therefore I don't have the same characteristics that I had when I was born.

[/size][/font]

Nope, not a tattoo on a baby.. but if I had a little girl, I would pierce her ears... My ears were pierced at 6 mos. of age. However, if my daughter/son wanted to get a tattoo when she/he was older, say 16, I would sign for it, as long as I approved the design...
I perceive by your answers that you really do consider tattoos as mutilation otherwise you would have have no problem in doing your face or your baby
Well I hope the Lord understands. You will be able to compare body piercings too now

Tas

obuchiteck

23rd March 2004, 07:37 PM

I perceive by your answers that you really do consider tattoos as mutilation otherwise you would have no problem in doing your face or your baby
Well I hope the Lord understands. You will be able to compare body piercing too now

I don't consider it mutilation. I would Tattoo my face in a heartbeat if it wasn't for narrow mindedness and good ole fashion segregationists. Unfortunately there are still people in the world who fear change. (Gee sounds familiar) I dare anyone under the age of 30 and who lives in a town that has a population of more than 300,000 to argue against tattoos.

Shannonkish

23rd March 2004, 07:40 PM

I perceive by your answers that you really do consider tattoos as mutilation otherwise you would have have no problem in doing your face or your baby

Actually... if there wasn't any type of pain involved and I could read my child's mind as to whether or not she/he wanted it... I would consider it.

But, there IS pain (not much, less than other things) and I can't read his/her mind.

With piercing of the ears, most girls have them done... there are VERY few, in the US at least that don't have them pierced. So, more than likely my daughter would want her ears pierced later in life.

Tattoos are a personal thing.... there is a lot more to decide... as in where, and what you want to be tattooed.

As for my face... I have no desire to have my face tattooed. My ankle was tattooed because it is a place that can be hidden if needed, for work and what not.

Just so you know, I would be VERY VERY careful reading your own thoughts into what I write... if I want to express something, I say it... What you read is what I mean. I NEVER said that I consider tattoos as mutilation and your logic that brought you to that conclusion is flawed.

The Lord understands. :) You don't have to worry about that... :)

TasManOfGod

23rd March 2004, 07:42 PM

I don't consider it mutilation. I would Tattoo my face in a heartbeat if it wasn't for narrow mindedness and good ole fashion segregationists. Unfortunately there are still people in the world who fear change. (Gee sounds familiar) I dare anyone under the age of 30 and who lives in a town that has a population of more than 300,000 to argue against tattoos.
There were more than 300 000 who knew Noah was building a big boat too.

blessing
Tas

Oblivious

23rd March 2004, 07:43 PM

I perceive by your answers that you really do consider tattoos as mutilation otherwise you would have have no problem in doing your face or your baby
Time to chime in :)

Congratulations for attempting to make some kind of point

To answer your first question: Tattoos are not a form of mutilation. Where do you come up with this stuff :confused: I do have a problem with tattooing my face because a) I happen to like my face and it doesn't need any improvements made to it and b)I really don't feel like being judged the rest of my life by yourself and others in society who have a problem with someone wanting to be "an individual".

Your second baby question really doesn't apply to me, since I do not have children and do not plan on having them.

Well I hope the Lord understands. You will be able to compare body piercings too now

Tas
That really has no relevence to the OP :rolleyes:

Oblivious

23rd March 2004, 07:46 PM

There were more than 300 000 who knew Noah was building a big boat too.

blessing
Tas
So you're comparing the 300,000 people who either have tattoos or think it's okay to the unbelievers who refused to obey God in Noah's time :confused:

Nice. :rolleyes:

obuchiteck

23rd March 2004, 07:48 PM

There were more than 300 000 who knew Noah was building a big boat too.

What the heck does that mean? Come on quit it please I'm cracking up way to much at work right now. Are seriously telling my that I'm screwed? I'm going to hell because I have a tattoo. Please answer yes or no.. I dare you.

TasManOfGod

23rd March 2004, 07:49 PM

Oblivius
The matter of having tattoos is not in question What is tho is the heart attitude towards them

Tas

TasManOfGod

23rd March 2004, 07:52 PM

What the heck does that mean? Come on quit it please I'm cracking up way to much at work right now. Are seriously telling my that I'm screwed? I'm going to hell because I have a tattoo. Please answer yes or no.. I dare you.
Whether there is 1 or 1 million in your town who want tattos matters not What matters is what God wants of you

Tas

Shannonkish

23rd March 2004, 08:00 PM

Whether there is 1 or 1 million in your town who want tattos matters not What matters is what God wants of you

and you have YET to show ANY proof that God doesn't want them. So, therefore your points are invaild.

obuchiteck

23rd March 2004, 08:03 PM

AM I GOING TO HELL?

Shannonkish

23rd March 2004, 08:04 PM

of course not, that is unless you aren't a Christian. :)

Oblivious

23rd March 2004, 08:08 PM

AM I GOING TO HELL?
I don't know, only God knows. But if you do, it won't be because of a tattoo ;)

TasManOfGod

23rd March 2004, 08:11 PM

I don't know, only God knows. But if you do, it won't be because of a tattoo ;)
Agreed But it might be for yelling :holy:

obuchiteck

23rd March 2004, 08:14 PM

LOL..

Subtlety is not my strength

pgray1229

23rd March 2004, 08:18 PM

I think they're ok to have. I've got 3 myself, but I still practice the word. That makes me an OK person, doesn't it! :)

Patience

TasManOfGod

23rd March 2004, 08:26 PM

I think they're ok to have. I've got 3 myself, but I still practice the word. That makes me an OK person, doesn't it! :)

PatienceThe problem is not about having them but whether you have acknowledged that getting them was a sin, repenting of that and asking forgiveness. It certainly is not allright to support others who want them or to "show-off" the ones you have.

blessing
Tas

obuchiteck

23rd March 2004, 08:36 PM

Somebody help me out here. Could someone show me (in the new testament) Thou shall not tattoo..

Oblivious

23rd March 2004, 08:41 PM

Somebody help me out here. Could someone show me (in the new testament) Thou shall not tattoo..
Not possible, being that there is no such verse. But some will go ahead and interpret other verses as saying such.

TasManOfGod

23rd March 2004, 08:48 PM

The laws of God are now written on the heart. Can God be responsible for illiteracy?

pgray1229

23rd March 2004, 08:59 PM

The problem is not about having them but whether you have acknowledged that getting them was a sin, repenting of that and asking forgiveness. It certainly is not allright to support others who want them or to "show-off" the ones you have.

blessing
Tas

I keep mine covered. I never tell anyone to get them. This was just a personal preference. I asked for forgivemess, and new it was a sin.

Patience

TasManOfGod

23rd March 2004, 09:08 PM

I keep mine covered. I never tell anyone to get them. This was just a personal preference. I asked for forgivemess, and new it was a sin.

PatienceGood . God bless you. No doubt He showed you that by His Spirt

Tas

obuchiteck

24th March 2004, 12:42 AM

The laws of God are now written on the heart. Can God be responsible for illiteracy?

I guess that whole bible thing isn't his responsibility?

Good . God bless you. No doubt He showed you that by His Spirt

This scares me.. Isn't deeming one self to be righteous a sin? Not once have you've been able to help me with the understanding of why Tattoo's are a sin. Why god would be so cruel to send a Christian with a tattoo of a cross or anything to hell.. I am willing to learn from others and especially ones with difference of opinions, yet all I here is "it's bad".. Well that doesn't do squat for me.

Dangerous ground in the war for souls. flesh is only temporary.

Shannonkish

24th March 2004, 12:44 AM

The problem is not about having them but whether you have acknowledged that getting them was a sin, repenting of that and asking forgiveness. It certainly is not allright to support others who want them or to "show-off" the ones you have.

The problem with this is assuming that it is a sin.. you have yet to show us a logical or biblical case AGAINST tattoos and where it is against the bible, or God's word. Until you do show us, I would suggest looking at 1 Cor. 8- where it talks about meat sacrificed to idols.... There is nothing wrong with tattoos... however, you may have a conviction against them, and that is fine.. however, you can't force your convictions upon other people.

I have been a Christian for 10 years now... have had a tattoo for 3. Tell me, why is the Holy Spirit going to convict me of telling a little "white lie" but not convict me of getting a tattoo?

obuchiteck

24th March 2004, 12:52 AM

Dear Lord thanks for the creativity and the great pallet to have an outlet

*BOOM!* Ah man just got struck by lightning.. :help:
http://www.intergruv.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/58.gif

bound2him

24th March 2004, 12:52 AM

TasManOfGod

24th March 2004, 12:55 AM

I have been a Christian for 10 years now... have had a tattoo for 3. Tell me, why is the Holy Spirit going to convict me of telling a little "white lie" but not convict me of getting a tattoo?
Your mind probably believes that tats are OK and your will says you wont change your will and God let's you have your own free will

Perhaps you ought to give up all your preconceived ideas and hear what God is really saying to you

obuchiteck

24th March 2004, 01:00 AM

Perhaps you ought to give up all your preconceived ideas and hear what God is really saying to you

Take some of that medicine. It's a socially gang up that conceived tattoos to be bad. Yet many native cultures tattooed themselves...

Like I said.. I don't think I worship such a callous god.

TasManOfGod

24th March 2004, 01:16 AM

i think they are great! as far as not putting grafitti on the house of god, well what about a beautiful painting??? i believe those verese condemming tattoos were condemming the use of them and the cutting of the skin for pagan religious meanings... i dont see anything wrong with tasteful tattoos today :)

just my two cents!
I suppose you also believe that a little sin is alright with God but a big one is not. Further He doesn't show us where the dividing line is so that in that way we can do a big one and think it was a little one

Well I don't serve that kind of God
blessing
Tas

Shannonkish

24th March 2004, 01:16 AM

Your mind probably believes that tats are OK and your will says you wont change your will and God let's you have your own free will

Perhaps you ought to give up all your preconceived ideas and hear what God is really saying to you

Or, perhaps I will share my story with you instead...

Growing up, I always wanted a tattoo... but decided against them as a little girl because at the time there were stories of how blood borne pathogens could be spread through the needles.

When I turned 17, I started praying about a lot of things. I didn't want to have convictions because the church traditionally has those convictions. I wanted a biblical basis to back up my convictions. I wanted to be able to know my convictions and not be swayed.

I began praying about alcohol (whole different topic), tattoos, "secular" music, and other things.

When I turned 18, one year of prayer later, my convictions were solid. They could still be molded but, only by God.

I began drawing. One drawing in particular (which is now my tattoo) my church wanted painted on a wall. So, I painted it. They wanted it because of the symbolism... which goes back to something my pastor mentioned to us.

First, it is a cross- for obvious reasons, the sacrifice of Christ. It is a visual reminder of the pain and agony that my Savior shed for me. Secondly, it is a dagger. The dagger can symbolizes several things-the word of god, which is a lamp unto my feet (hence the reason it is on my ankle). It also stands for wanting to put to death those things in my life that lower the standards that God has placed on my life-- the standards of Christ.

After praying about it, I sought God about my tattoo. Should I get one? So, I researched it... how safe is it? (very safe) What is the liklihood of getting a diease? (slim to none- they are required to use an autoclave to clean everything)How much pain is involved? (not a lot) Will the ink harm me? (nope!)

I felt a peace about getting the tattoo and went with a good friend of mine to get it done. While there, I ministered to the artist that worked on my tattoo. He liked it so much that he took a picture to put in his portfolio. He also wanted my contact information to talk to me more about salvation.

Since then, I have not felt any conviction against my tattoo. I have never regretted it, nor have I ever been ashamed of it.

I hear what God is saying to me.... but I think you are mistaking what YOU want me to hear with what God is telling me.

Shannonkish

24th March 2004, 01:19 AM

Tas,

suppose you also believe that a little sin is alright with God but a big one is not.

Let's stop assuming they are a sin.... show me scripture to prove it... until then all we have is your opinion and I am sorry, but I don't trust other's opinions. If it is a sin, or if God is against it, he would have something to say about it in his word... yet, you are not showing me anywhere that it is a sin.

TasManOfGod

24th March 2004, 01:28 AM

Shannon
It is a nce story and I believe that you genuinely believe it is OK - but it was still your will to go get it- it was what YOU wanted . Was it what God wanted for you to have? God doesn't interfere with our will. He never did with Eve (or Adam) and nobody since.

God bless
Tas

Shannonkish

24th March 2004, 01:35 AM

Tas,

I am going to stop replying to your posts until you provide Biblical evidence for your stance on Tattoos. It is pointless to talk to you.

God doesn't interferre with our will.. but there are consequences.... and conviction-- neither of which I have seen. I am also led by the Holy Spirit... I think that after of year of seeking God on whether to get a tattoo or not, the Holy Spirit, if it were a sin, would have answered my prayer and confirmed it as such.

TasManOfGod

24th March 2004, 02:10 AM

I am going to stop replying to your posts until you provide Biblical evidence for your stance on Tattoos. It is pointless to talk to you.

Here is something I found on the net

A visitor to this site sent this email:

I'm currently looking into the question of whether or not it is Biblically acceptable for a Christian to have a tattoo. Leviticus 19:28 seems to suggest that this might be forbidden but the English translation doesn't make it clear whether the prohibition is due to it being on behalf of the dead, as the prohibition against cutting oneself is. I would be very grateful if you might offer me some Biblical insight into this or refer me to some helpful material, resources or links. Thanks.

Simon answered:

This is important topic to address at the moment because tattoos seem to have become very fashionable among the youth culture of the West. It is bound to have repercussions in the church and we ought to address this matter. The Old Testament Ruling

I wonder what translation you are using. I looked it up in my New King James Bible and there seemed no lack of clarity in the ruling. "You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the Lord." Leviticus 19:28 - NKJV.

The Authorised King James Version is just as clear as New King James Bible and so is the Amplified Bible and the New Living Translation. They tell of two things not to be done - 1) make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead and 2) tattoo any marks on you. Law or Spirit?

I must say though, having pointed that out, that a legalistic approach is not the appropriate one for dealing with this issue - or any such issue - in Christian circles. The reason for this is that we, as believers, are not under the Law. There are numerous declarations of this in the New Testament. Perhaps the clearest are the following two. "Having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross." Colossians 2:14 - NKJV."The Law was our tutor to bring us up to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." Galatians 3:3:24-25 - NKJV.

You might well then ask, "What are our constraints if we are not under the Law?" The New Testament gives us a wonderfully direct answer to this, "For the love of Christ controls and urges and impels us." 2 Corinthians 5:14 - Amplified Bible

Paul also expands on this answer in his letter to the Romans. He writes, "Now we are discharged from the Law and have terminated all intercourse with it, having died to what once restrained us and held us captive. So now we serve not under [obedience to] the old code of written regulations, but [under obedience to the promptings] of the Spirit in newness of life." Romans 7:6 - Amplified Bible.The counsel of God's Spirit

Is it possibly justifiable for a Christian to accept a tattoo? I would say no!

The issue here is not one of law but rather of what any tattoo represents and, most seriously of all, the life-long commitment the receiving of a tattoo makes to what or whoever it represents!

I believe this is why God closes Leviticus 19:28 with the words, "I am the Lord". He's declaring that a tattoo represents a statement of absolute commitment and allegiance to someone or something. He's saying He's the only One worthy of absolute commitment and allegiance.

At the same time God indicates by this Old Covenant law that He doesn't want you committing yourself to Him with a tattoo and He very definitely doesn't want you making a commitment like this to someone or something else!

There is another issue here too. The Spirit of God in the New Testament has made some very definite statements about our bodies. By Paul the Holy Spirit has declared, "Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God and you are not your own? For you are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in you body and in your spirit which are God's" 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 - NKJV.

Can a tattoo be considered to glorify God? Can a tattoo be considered appropriate adorning to the Temple of the Holy Spirit?

Any Christian must answer some very searching questions if they are considering adorning themselves with a tattoo. I believe the questions the Spirit of God poses from the Word of God must lead a Christian to conclude that a tattoo is not for them!
Pastor Simon - Cheltenham, UK. (June 16th, 1999

obuchiteck

24th March 2004, 02:18 AM

it's about time...

question.... is it a sin to donate your organs? Cutting the flesh for the dead you know..

TasManOfGod

24th March 2004, 02:24 AM

Shannon
Check this site out too:
http://www.wordoftruthradio.com/questions/20.html
or
http://www.victorylifechurch.org/pdf/tattoos.pdf

Shannonkish

24th March 2004, 02:25 AM

wow.. I read that like 10 minutes ago... Simon, is not very well educated....

To begin with.. what do we do with the verses in Lev. 19:27 where it tells us not to cut our hair? Or what about the other laws found in the OT... do you keep them all?? What about The Sabbath? or what about the laws of sacrifices? Or what about the laws concerning what we can and cannot eat?

Or the laws about being unclean... or any other law in the OT... Do we just pick and choose which ones we feel like following?

Now, please try to find scripture for yourself rather than gaining your opinions on these matters from someone else.

Shannonkish

24th March 2004, 02:39 AM

Tas,

Have a look at one of my favorite websites-- http://www.christiantatts.com/support.pdf

seesthru

24th March 2004, 03:09 AM

I'd say you don't need tattoos... I woudln't get one.. I think the love of God should be tattooed in your heart, not on the skin. Just a personal opinion though.

seesthru

24th March 2004, 03:11 AM

cutting flesh for the dead means to slice yoruself in mourning... If you donate organs, you're cutting the flesh for the living...

Droobie

24th March 2004, 03:36 AM

**modhaton**

Folks, let's keep things friendly and in an edifying manner. If you have disagreements I suggest you walk away for a few hours/days/weeks and come back when things are cooler. If anything, agree to disagree.

**modhatoff**

TheOtherDude

24th March 2004, 06:59 AM

Ink in the skin

Neenie

24th March 2004, 07:25 AM

Ink in the skin

Yeah.. i know :sigh: for some reason people are making a big deal out of it.

Shannonkish

24th March 2004, 02:53 PM

Thank you Droobie. I apologize if what I said in rebuttle to Tas was out of line.

A New Dawn

24th March 2004, 03:45 PM

I have a tattoo. It is a beautiful flower, on my back, so only I can see it (and my husband.) I think that where the problem comes in with tattoos is the nature of the design and what it implies, but in general, I don't have a problem with tattoos. :cool:

bound2him

24th March 2004, 04:37 PM

I suppose you also believe that a little sin is alright with God but a big one is not. Further He doesn't show us where the dividing line is so that in that way we can do a big one and think it was a little one

Well I don't serve that kind of God
blessing
Tas
no i dont believe that at all :)
Blessing back at ya ;)

obuchiteck

24th March 2004, 04:42 PM

http://www.intergruv.net/imagery/albums/userpics/10014/28.jpg

bound2him

24th March 2004, 04:45 PM

Tas,

Have a look at one of my favorite websites-- http://www.christiantatts.com/support.pdf

is that page in html anywhere? For some reason my adobe cant open it

Shannonkish

24th March 2004, 04:55 PM

It's not.. but let me see if I can get it for you.

obuchiteck

24th March 2004, 04:56 PM

I dunno, I thought it was html (http://www.intergruv.net/imagery/albums/userpics/10014/28.jpg)

wow

25th March 2004, 12:57 PM

Would your face be disfigured if you tattooed a half inch wide line diagonally across it?
I am a 40ish woman with a visual impairment. I am partially sighted in one eye. Many times this impairment makes it quite difficult for me to correctly apply make-up. I am considering having permanent make-up applied. Eye liner, eye shadow, blush, brow liner, even lipstick can be permanently applied using the same techniques that are used for tattooing. Sure this procedure is typically done by a doctor in a medical office instead of in a tattoo parlor. But it is still a tattoo. I'm really only interested in having a bit of eye liner done. I can see well enough out of one eye to apply foundation, blush and lipstick. Would I have my face tattooed? Yes, in a heartbeat. Do I think it would be disfigurig and detract from my appearance? Not at all. Quite the opposite actually.

Oblivious

25th March 2004, 01:51 PM

I am a 40ish woman with a visual impairment. I am partially sighted in one eye. Many times this impairment makes it quite difficult for me to correctly apply make-up. I am considering having permanent make-up applied. Eye liner, eye shadow, blush, brow liner, even lipstick can be permanently applied using the same techniques that are used for tattooing. Sure this procedure is typically done by a doctor in a medical office instead of in a tattoo parlor. But it is still a tattoo. I'm really only interested in having a bit of eye liner done. I can see well enough out of one eye to apply foundation, blush and lipstick. Would I have my face tattooed? Yes, in a heartbeat. Do I think it would be disfigurig and detract from my appearance? Not at all. Quite the opposite actually.
Wow - what an excellent point you just made! You go girl! :clap:

Sorry to hear about your visual impairment. As far as the "tattoo makeup" goes - go for it!!! That's actually a great idea for anyone. It would definitely be a real time saver in the morning!

Shannonkish

25th March 2004, 02:42 PM

I want to echo Oblivious' post..:)

TasManOfGod

25th March 2004, 05:46 PM

Oblivious

25th March 2004, 05:56 PM

I suppose the ultimate test of whether tattoos are acceptable to God is whether we would still have them in heaven
Or maybe the angels have them too
In which case I will apologise for all my negative comments about them

Tas
Being that in heaven we will be in a spiritual form and not a physical form, the answer would no. Therefore, the question has no relevance to the OP.

Shannonkish

25th March 2004, 05:57 PM

Tas,

I will have 10 toes in heaven, does that mean that me not having 10 toes now is unacceptable to God? I won't have to wear contacts in heaven, does that mean that my bad eyesight is unacceptable to God? Jesus, when he appeared to the disciples after the resurrection had the wounds in his hands and feet still, but the other wounds were gone... does that mean that only the wounds on his hands and feet are acceptable to God?

Tas, your logic is very flawed and you are being close-minded about it. You won't even respond to requests for true logic to be used, or for scripture to be used. Instead you point out the flaws that you, as a human, see in tattoos. Why is that?

obuchiteck

25th March 2004, 06:26 PM

I suppose the ultimate test of whether tattoos are acceptable to God is whether we would still have them in heaven
Or maybe the angels have them too
In which case I will apologise for all my negative comments about them

Tas

Actually, that would be kind of kewl..

On a different note.. {bible verse.. somewhere}.. LOL..
"Ye who has not sinned, cast the first stone.. "

Tas? What does that mean?

porcupine

25th March 2004, 06:34 PM

Being that in heaven we will be in a spiritual form and not a physical form, the answer would no. Therefore, the question has no relevance to the OP.

We will have a new physical form after the resurrection, though. What about then?

TasManOfGod

25th March 2004, 06:36 PM

On a different note.. {bible verse.. somewhere}.. LOL..
"Ye who has not sinned, cast the first stone.. "
Tas? What does that mean?

It means sinners and sin should be separate issues

porcupine

25th March 2004, 06:36 PM

Actually, that would be kind of kewl..

On a different note.. {bible verse.. somewhere}.. LOL..
"Ye who has not sinned, cast the first stone.. "

Tas? What does that mean?

It is not correct to use this verse to say that Tas or anyone else should not point out sin (though I disagree with Tas on whether tats are sin). The Bible clearly commands us to point out sin -- espoecially among the brethren so that the Body may become more purified. It would be wrong for someone to point out sin in others that he was still involved in himself, though (Matthew 7: 1-4).

Shannonkish

25th March 2004, 06:41 PM

is that page in html anywhere? For some reason my adobe cant open it
bound- Here ya go:

Bible Support for Tattoos
By Jason Gennaro
Reprinted with permission

The Old law and the New Law established by Christ and how Leviticus 19:28 relates to the New Law
It seems every Christian anti-tattoo argument is based primarily on one thing...a single verse from Leviticus:

"You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the LORD."

Now, there is a very real problem with this argument. One cannot believe that Jesus is Lord and He came to save the world through grace and love and still accept this verse as applicable to us today. It sounds harsh, but it is true. Why?

The answer is simple. Christ gave us a New Law, one that supersedes the Old Testament Law, which includes Leviticus 19:28.

By answering the following questions, we will see that Christ’s New Law frees us from the fetters that kept us captive to rituals and observances such as Leviticus 19:28.

What is the Old Law? Why was it necessary?

Before we explain the New Law and its freedoms, we need to look at the Old Law, its nature, and why it was necessary in salvation history. Before Christ embraced humanity and became man, the world was in disarray: it was ivided and people did not understand that we shared a common Father, that is, the one true God. The bible tells us this much. In fact, we know that men were spiritually childlike, immature, and unable to comprehend their sinfulness, and divided as we were, there was no quick solution for unity. It was at this moment, with the coming of Christ already a part of His Divine plan, that the Lord our God took to himself a people who would be set apart and made ready to receive the Redeemer (see Deuteronomy 7:6). To prepare for this moment, the fullness of time when Christ would appear, God gave Moses and the Israelites certain laws that awakened their consciences and, at the same time, set them apart from the pagan nations, a kind of “barrier” that ensured the Israelites remained free from "contamination."

Thus we have the Old Law, as outlined in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. The Old Law is divided into two parts, the moral code and the civil and ceremonial precepts (ritual observances). The moral code, summed up in the Ten Commandments, is a natural law, the law of the conscience, gathered by reason, and the foundation upon which man is to realize his vocation to live in the image of God. The commandments make plain what is against the love of God, and therefore they show us our sins. The second part of the Old Law, the observances, was necessary to ensure the Israelites remained united as a people and apart from the pagans.

If we had a Law, why did we need a New Law?

So the next question is, if we had a Law, why did we need a New Law? The truth is this: the Old Law is incomplete. That is not to say it is unholy or uninspired or not part of God’s mysterious plan. The Old Law, with its severe punishments and earthly rewards, was necessary for an obstinate people who were both carnal and unspiritual. God wanted his chosen people to develop an awareness of sinfulness so when the fullness of time arrived, God would introduce a New Law that would allow each of us to know, in our hearts, the love of God, who forgives our sins and raises us to eternal life. And therein lies the weaknesses of the Old Law:

• It does not forgive sins (since only God’s love can do this)
• It suggests our actions, in accordance with the Law, are the only criteriafor eternal life (wrong, since only grace based on faith can guarantee this)
• It relies on fear of punishment, rather than love, which is God.

In truth, if the Old Law did have the power to make us righteous and sinless, cleanand perfect sacrifices for the Lord, then Jesus' death on the cross, the sacrifice that opens the door to God the Father, would have been unnecessary.
"I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose." —Galatians 2:21

"Christ has obtained a ministry which is as much more excellent than the old as thecovenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second." —Hebrews 8:6-7

It is clear that the Old Law does not have the power to free us from the chains of sin, because only the grace of the Holy Spirit, given to the faithful through faith in Christ, is able to remove the stain of sin. Faith and forgiveness of sins are gifts that lead to eternal life, and only Christ can give those gifts. The ceremonial and ritual observances of the Old Law were only indications of a purer, more effective way of life, as seen in the New Law, which, when instituted, rendered most of the Old Laws meaningless.

But how do we know there really is a New Law?

The entire New Testament is a proclamation of the New Law, as are the actions of the early church. We see the New Law in:

• the writings of the Apostles, the Evangelists, and St. Paul
• the actions of the Early Church
• Christ’s words and actions
In the New Testament, St. John the Baptist is among the first persons to acknowledge that there is a New Law we are to follow if we are to attain forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

“The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’”—John 1:29
In just one statement, John the Baptist makes it clear that Jesus is the sacrifice (Lamb) that removes our sin, not the sacrifices outlined in the Old Law. If the ritual observances held any weight at this point, John the Baptist would have said, ‘Behold,the Lamb of God, who, along with circumcision and burnt offerings, takes away the sin of the world!’” But he didn’t.

St. John the Evangelist, in his Gospel, outlines the necessity of faith—not observance of the Old Law—as the basis for the gaining of the Kingdom:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." —John 3:16

St. John doesn't write that in order to gain the kingdom, we must be circumcised or offer burnt offerings on an altar or refuse to touch lepers. No, he writes that we need to have faith, faith in Christ.

And St. Peter, first among the Apostles and leader of the early church, said that faith in Christ, and not adherence to the Old Law, is the main requirement for the forgiveness of sins:

Shannonkish

25th March 2004, 06:43 PM

"To him all the prophets bear witness that every one who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." —Acts 10:43

If some Christians believe that these expressions are too obtuse and obscure and do not sufficiently describe the abrogation of the Old Law in favour of the New Law, then I say that they should read what St. Paul had to say about the Law that governed the lives of the Jews. St. Paul is prodigious in his condemnation of the Old Law as a necessary tool for the attainment of salvation:

"You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love." —Galatians 5:4-6

"But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit." —Romans 7:6

"For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith" —Philippians 3:8-9

"Our competence is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life." —2 Corinthians 3:5-6

In addition to the writings of the apostles, evangelists, and St. Paul, the actions of the early church indicate that a New Law was being realized.

St. Peter, leader of the church and Christ’s proxy on earth, shows by example while visiting the pagan Cornelius, who is astounded that St. Peter would meet with him, someone considered unclean by the standards expressed in the Old Law. Here, Peter tells those gathered in the house of Cornelius that a New Law has been promulgated:

“You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit any one of another nation; but God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” —Acts 10:28

In the next few years, the early church would become even more adamant about severing itself from the ritual practices that enslaved the Jews and kept them from loving all equally. In Acts 15, we see the leaders of the church (Peter, James, Paul, Barnabas, and many others) gather to clarify the church’s position towards circumcision, one of the holiest (and most separatist) laws of the Old Covenant established by Moses. The result should surprise no one: the apostles abolished the requirement for circumcision and almost every other law that bound the Jews. Why?

The Holy Spirit told them not to lay a greater burden than was necessary (Acts 15:28) because faith was the necessary element for a life in Christ.

Another of the most sacred laws of the Old Covenant, the Sabbath, was thoroughly eroded by the time St. Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians.
“On the first day of every week, each one of you should set asidea sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up,so that when I come no collections will have to be made.” —1 Corinthians 16:2
The first day of the week during that time was Sunday, and this verse clearly shows that this was the day that Christians met to celebrate as a community (as opposed to the Jewish Sabbath, Saturday). How could the Christians have abandoned the Sabbath, one of the holiest of precepts, if they did not have a New Law requiring faith and responding to grace?

But perhaps some Christians may say forget everything above: the early church misinterpreted what Jesus said and did during his ministry. How far from the Truth this is! Jesus not only spoke about the New Covenant He was establishing, He acted in a way so as to make it abundantly clear that His New Law was a matter of fact:

• He calls apostles uneducated in the Law
• He forgives sinners almost exclusively
• He condemns the religious orthodoxy (Pharisees)
• His teachings and parables show examples of the New Law
• He breaks the Old Law
If Christ were concerned about perpetuating the Old Law, would He not have chosen all of his apostles from among the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were rigid in their confirmation to the Law? Instead, Jesus’ choice of men is the complete opposite of such a scenario. His apostles are fishermen, tax collectors, and rebel fighters, hardly those who would be best to teach adherence to the Old Law.

Furthermore, who can contradict the Gospels, which relate how Jesus forgives the sins of pagans, unclean persons, and egregious sinners. (John 5:1, Mark 7:24, Mark 8:22, Matthew 9:20) If God were so concerned with rituals and observances, would Christ have bothered with these people, who obviously didn’t adhere to the Old Law?

No, obviously not. So what do these “sinners” have in common? They have faith, the one necessary element for our union with God. That is why Jesus tells those He healed, “Your faith has made you well.”

Of course, Jesus not only saves the sinners, He also condemns those who do follow the Law without concern for the Spirit, and this is very important. The very people who epitomize the Old Law are the people for whom Jesus reserves His most bitter condemnations. In several instances, Jesus denounces the Pharisees, who pride themselves on their strict adherence to the Law.

“How is it that you fail to perceive that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sad'ducees. Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sad'ducees.” —Matthew 16:11-12

Matthew and Luke also relate a vehement speech in which Christ denounces the Pharisees, and by implication, the Old Law and its ritual observances to which they are so dedicated:

"…But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in… And you say, 'If any one swears by the altar, it is nothing; but if any one swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.' You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by everything on it; and he who swears by the temple, swears by it and by him who dwells in it; and he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith…” —selected verses from Matthew 23 (see also Luke 11:39-52)

Jesus’ denunciation of the actions of the Pharisees does not end there. He also comments on their observances (part of the Old Law) and how those observances have no power to save them. In the parable of the Tax Collector and the Pharisee, the Tax Collector, who understands he is a sinner but has faith that God will save him, is justified while the Pharisee, who fasts twice a week and tithes all he gets, receives no justification (Luke 18:9-14)

Even Christ’s teachings, His parables, are filled with the application and celebration of the New Law. In the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-35), it is not the priest or the Levite—staunch followers of the Old Law—who help the man who was beaten by robbers. Why didn’t they help him? Well, if he had died or was dead already, the priest and the Levite, being followers of the Law, would have had to undergo a rigorous cleansing process. Of course, this “process,” part of the law, left no room for compassion. That is why it was the Samaritan, someone outside the Law, aided the helpless man. Christ is showing us here that love, working in us through the Holy Spirit, is what’s important, not adherence to a Law that puts so called cleanliness above compassion.

With clarity, Jesus rescinds the prohibition against eating foods deemed unclean by the Old Law, because the prohibition has zero chance of making someone holy and welcoming to God: "And he called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand: not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man." —Matthew 15:10-11

Lastly, Jesus will BREAK certain precepts of the Old Law in order to show that rituals and observances are nothing without the Spirit, which moves us in unexplainable ways. Christ shocks and angers the Pharisees on two occasions, when He disobeys the Law restricting work on the Sabbath, one of the most revered of the Laws. In one instance, Christ heals a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath (Luke 6:6-10, Mark 3:1-5), and, in another instance, He allows His apostles to pick and eat wheat in a field on the Sabbath (Luke 6:1-5, Matthew 12:1-8). Would Jesus do such things if the Old Law were sacrosanct? This is doubtful. Instead, it’s more likely that He wanted to show that observance means little if the heart, the Spirit, is not part of the equation.

Then, there are those who say, “What about Christ’s proclamation that He did not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfil them?” (Matthew 5:17) It is true that Jesus said that not one iota of the law will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. But Jesus accomplished everything. His life, death, and resurrection fulfilled the prophecies and brought to a conclusion the Old Covenant, opening the way for a New Covenant governed by a New Law. So, when Christ is talking about the Law remaining, he is saying to his contemporaries that they will not see a change while he is alive.

Shannonkish

25th March 2004, 06:44 PM

Does this mean the Old Law is null and void?

Without a doubt, we have shown that God, through Christ, has instituted a New Law. Now what? Is all the Old Law null and void? Not at all! We know that each of us needs to follow what is essential in the Old Law: the Ten Commandments. How do we know this? Jesus told us so. When the lawyer asked him to name the first (that is, the most important) commandment, Jesus answered:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets." — Matthew 22:37-40

Here, Christ explicitly tells us that laws we need to follow are those that deal with the love of God and the love of our neighbour. Therefore, He is telling us to continue to practice the moral code (the Ten Commandments), but do so because you are motivated by love and spirit rather than fear of punishment.

In fact, Jesus not only tells us that the only part of the Law that is necessary is the Decalogue (Ten Commandments), He also takes those commandments and gives us a new understanding, based on his New Law of love and faith. He shows that it is not enough to follow the letter of the Law, there is also an underlying Spirit:

“You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.” —Matthew 5:21-22 (see also verses 23-48)

Conclusion: the New Law

It is true that we have a New Law that both fulfills and abrogates the Old Law, by elevating the moral code (the Ten Commandments) and rescinding the rituals and observances. Hence, we are not bound by certain Laws, such as those that require our circumcision or the abstention from certain foods. It becomes rather obvious that the prohibition against tattoos in Leviticus is also one of those Laws. It is as simple as that.

The Context of 1 Corinthians 6:19…Your Body as a Temple

Of course, tattoo opponents also like to stress these words of St. Paul: "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honour God with your body." —1 Corinthians 6:19-20

Unfortunately, the tattoo opponents have not read this verse in context. Here St. Paul is not opposing tattoos but warning the residents of Corinth about the dangers of sexual promiscuity, especially in the pagan practice of having sex with ritual prostitutes. To put this into perspective, Corinth during St. Paul’s time was a thriving Metropolis, a rich city with two ports. One of its main attractions was a massive temple dedicated to the Greek Goddess of Love, Aphrodite. Thousands of ritual prostitutes, used in celebration of Aphrodite, congregated around the temple.

Since a sizeable part of the newly formed Christian community in Corinth was of pagan origin, the use of ritual prostitutes was something of a habit that needed to be broken. In his letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul shows that we belong to God, brought about through His Son Jesus Christ’s sacrifice, and that fornicating with ritual prostitutes is tantamount to sacrificing to false Gods. He is also showing that sexual immorality is a sin against the body, which houses the Holy Spirit, in essence, sexual immorality is a sin committed directly against God. Interesting to note that all of this, nowhere is tattooing mentioned.

Tattoo Imagery in the Bible

We know that religious tattooing before the time of Christ was common for nearly everyone except the Jewish people (otherwise we would not see the prohibition in Leviticus 19:28).

And although there are no scriptural references in which we are told to "get tattooed," there are a number of verses in which the writers, whom we believe were inspired by the Holy Spirit, make allusions to tattoos or use tattoos as metaphors.

This leads us to believe that tattooing was an acknowledged part of life. Why? Well, if such a subject were taboo or against the Law, would its use as an allusion or metaphor be justified?

Below are some verses I believe may show an acceptance or acknowledgment of tattoos.

"And it shall be to you as a sign on your hand and as a memorial between your eyes, that the law of the LORD may be in your mouth." —Exodus 13:9

"It shall be as a mark on your hand or frontlets between your eyes; for by a strong hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt." —Exodus 13:16

In these two quotes from Exodus, God is telling his people that while many—especially pagans—use tattoos and religious totems, He will give the Jews something greater: a celebration of the day they were saved and brought out of Egypt. For the Jews, this will be their unique mark. This seems to contradict our position. However, the verses show that tattoos were a normal aspect of society. God never tells the people that tattooing is wrong or immoral. He doesn't even say that they need to stop doing it. He only tells them that He will make them different than all others through their celebrations.

"This one will say, 'I am the LORD's,' another will call himself by the name of Jacob, and another will write on his hand, 'The Lord's,' and surname himself by the name of Israel." —Isaiah 44:5

"Behold, I have graven you on the palms of my hands; your walls are continually before me." —Isaiah 49:16

Here Isaiah is speaking God's word to the more conscious minorities of Israel who, during their exile, are worried about becoming lost amidst the pagans of Babylon.

Through Isaiah, God reminds His people that he will never forget them because He loves them, and as proof that He will never abandon them, He tells the Jews that He has graven [carved into...written permanently] on his hands a reminder to save them.

"And the LORD said to him, 'Go through the city, through Jerusalem, and put a mark upon the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over all the abominations that are committed in it'." —Ezekiel 9:4

The mark in this verse refers to the letter T or the Hebrew letter Tau, which appears as the shape of a cross, and which was painted in lamb's blood on the door posts to save the "remnant" of Israel when God wiped out all the first born of Egypt during the last plague. In this instance, the mark will be placed upon believers who are saddened by the sins committed in Jerusalem.

"Henceforth let no man trouble me; for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus." —Galatians 6:17

Here, St. Paul is likely discussing the beatings and punishments he endured for the sake of the Gospel of Christ (see 2 Cor. 11:24-28). This is a pointed jab at those who believe they are justified by other marks, that is, circumcision. Undeniable, though, is the tattoo imagery. Brand marks are what Roman slave owners tattooed on their chattel to display ownership.

"Then I saw another angel ascend from the rising of the sun, with the seal of the living God, and he called with a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm earth and sea, saying, 'Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God upon their foreheads.'" —Revelations 7:2-3

"On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, King of kings and Lord of lords." —Revelations 19:16

This last verse from Revelations is part of John's prophecy about the destruction of the Roman Empire and the heretofore-invincible Roman armies. The verse shows Christ as the "Master of the Universe" whose name, which is the Word of God (and, in essence, everything), is more than just a title on a royal garment. Instead, it is something that belongs to Jesus alone and is intrinsically linked to He who is Lord of all...through a unique marking on his body.

Again, I want to stress that these verses do not show that God endorses tattoos but that tattoos were an accepted part of society during the biblical era and that there is little evidence to show that God explicitly disapproves of tattoos.
Our Duty to Evangelize
Finally, it's important that Christians realize that Jesus doesn't want us to hide our faith or keep our faith to ourselves. Just the opposite. He commands us to do everything within our power to let our brothers and sisters know the one true Word, the Good News:

"Go, therefore, and make disciples from all the nations." —Matthew 28:19

"What I tell you in the dark, utter in the light; and what you hear whispered, proclaim upon the housetops." —Matthew 10:27

In fact, even if we wanted to keep it to ourselves (for selfish reasons or for fear of persecution), once the Spirit moves us, we can longer keep silent: "No one after lighting a lamp puts it in a cellar or under a bushel, but on a stand, that those who enter may see the light." —Luke 11:33

So, whether we choose st