Is Being Against Tatoos the Law?

[farouk]

I guess yours weren't faith based designs, then?

One of them is on the 'most regreted tattoos' list. Im sure you can guess what it is. No need to post your guess answer because i wont answer.

I will get it changed one day. Find a good artist who can use what it already is and change it into something different.

[MENTION=94669]kiwidan[/MENTION]:

Yes, it takes some skill to do this, but there are some really good tattoo artists that can do such a transformation well.

Do you think your changed design will become something faith related maybe? or perhaps more of a generally neutral pattern?

Blessings.

 

[farouk]

Do you think your changed design will become something faith related maybe? or perhaps more of a generally neutral pattern?

Probably just some random general design. I dont think an artist can do too much with it. Will see what happens. Maybe they can but as you said it takes alot of skill and there would be a limit on what they could do with it.

[MENTION=94669]kiwidan[/MENTION]:

Is there a good parlor near you, maybe? (You're in NZ, right? I think you guys must have tattooists who use a unique combination of indigenous Maori patterns with Western methods.)

Blessings.

 

[TOG]

The old testament is the law given to God's chosen people, the Jews.

I desagree. I believe the law was given for all of God's people, not just some of them. The Bible says that the law defines what sin is (I John 3:4) and that it brings blessings into our lives when we obey it (Josh 1:8). But the reason I mentioned it in my post is because the title of this thread mentions the law.

The TOG
​

 

[farouk]

The old testament is the law given to God's chosen people, the Jews.

I desagree. I believe the law was given for all of God's people, not just some of them. The Bible says that the law defines what sin is (I John 3:4) and that it brings blessings into our lives when we obey it (Josh 1:8). But the reason I mentioned it in my post is because the title of this thread mentions the law.

The TOG
​

Hi [MENTION=96759]TOG[/MENTION]:

I think the original question may kind of carry with it assumptions that are not necessarily warranted dispensationally.

For example, is the New Testament believer really under the Old Testament law rather than under grace? My reading of Galatians and Romans would strongly suggest s/he is not.

It also seems to me that the strongest critics of bodyart - even of faith based tattoo designs - are those of a Reformed outlook who don't make a clear distinction between the church and Israel, and being under the law and being under grace.

(Two cents'.)

Blessings.

 

[Nick]

LOL looks like we're once again beating the dead horse!

For what it's worth, I voted yes. I think it should be cautiously approached, however.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Good morning every one, how are all my tatoo buddies?

Hey TOG, I love my bacon and I love my fried clams, so I disagree with you.

Hey Farouk, when do you sleep?

Hey Nick, it's nice to see you join the fun!

 

[King James]

How many things does the bible clearly say don't do and everyone does it and they don't even consider it wrong? When much larger unsettled issues are out there, why focus on little ones?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

How many things does the bible clearly say don't do and everyone does it and they don't even consider it wrong? When much larger unsettled issues are out there, why focus on little ones?

I don't know.

How many?

 

[PrivateTimm]

The way I was raised only criminals and enlisted men had tattoos.

Is it moral? It isn't immoral.

 

[Sparkey]

I've noticed a subtle difference between the POLLING Question, "Should Christians Have Tatoos?" and the thread title, "Is Being Against Tatoos the Law?"

Of course this is not a Sociology Class Survey so there is no real need to consider the bias behind various questions, it's just a bunch of people taking a poll on the internet. Still, the difference between the two questions is interesting to me. During the time of the holocaust, for instance, there were prohibitions against marking ones body within the Jewish communities. I've read that this was, in part, one of the reasons that they were tattooed with numbers on their arms. Jewish people with tats could not be buried in Jewish cemeteries. It was like adding insult to injury. Exceptions were made for holocaust survivors because their tattoos were given against their will.

When we consider the Title Question as, "Is it lawful to be against tattoos?" we can find no law that prohibits that particular stance.

IF then we are able to turn our thoughts to the POLLING Question, "Should Christians Have Tatoos?" we see, again, another subtle influence in the question itself. It calls for a judgment and lacks a certain clarity (perhaps). Should all Christians have tattoos? Should any Christian have tattoos? And what about that "should" word? A value judgment is a judgment of the rightness or wrongness of something, or of the usefulness of something, based on a comparison. What 'should' an unbiased question look like?

 

[Sparkey]

For what it's worth, I voted yes. I think it should be cautiously approached, however.

You voted "yes" that Christians should have tattoos? Respectfully, I will choose to absent myself of this opinion and will refrain from getting a tat. Not trying to say that your opinion doesn't matter, but only that it does not matter, as it applies to me.

Just by the way, I know that is not what you meant. Just as you know that I can rightly be called a member of a stiff-necked, and stubborn people. I prefer the term, 'peculiar', and do indeed love to give regard (but not pin my hopes on) the Law.

 

[TOG]

Hey TOG, I love my bacon and I love my fried clams, so I disagree with you.

I am soooo tempted to answer this, but I'd rather not start an argument about the law.

The TOG
​

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I said 'no', a Christian should not get them because they are still very much the mark of worldly rebellion, pride, and sensuality.

Ask me again when getting a tattoo becomes like Christmas and all traces of it's pagan origins have been lost to history and no one is left practicing it in the world who does it for the original purpose it was done for.

So are you against Christmas, too?

Did you really not understand what I wrote?

I can explain it to you if you want me to.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I think I am .I know Im completely free but I had to get over worrying about what other people think and I was so stuck on that .God went out of his way to help me with it and showed me he loved me for the strange girl I was and i didnt have to try to be someone else .Its beautiful because God replaced my need to be who my parents and other family wanted me to be.I have everything I need in God and Im free to be me

[MENTION=96349]hallowbonnie[/MENTION]: Yes, Galatians and Romans make it clear that the New Testament believer in the Lord Jesus, saved by His grace, is free from the law. (Not free to sin, but no longer under the law, as were Jews under the old covenant.)

Of course, some people, studying the theme of Christian liberty in Romans 14, might well decide eventually that a faith based tattoo, whether a Bible reference or Christian fish sign <><, etc. would for them be a positive witness help, but it's certainly not for all Christians, is it?

Take care.

It's interesting that you can only see and comment on the liberties taught in Romans 14 but seem oblivious to the responsibility taught in the chapter. Do you even know what our responsibility is when it comes to Christian liberty? It's taught right there in the chapter. Freedoms are always mitigated by loving responsibility.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

yes its ok to have tattoos,but i believe in moderation and modesty at the same time.Im not into legalism so I say yes.I have a crescent moon on my back and the only way it can be seen is if Im going swimming and wearing a bathing suit.Its something that means alot to me when I was little I thought of the moon as a father and friend until I came to know God at 17.

hallowbonnie you have a great testimony. And I don't want to diminish the grace of God you have received in any way. I'm saying that because I want to use things you say here to show farouk some things. Please do not take any thing I'm going to say as a judgment or criticism of you (I have none against you, so don't misunderstand).

Farouk, notice the reason she got her tattoo. This is exactly what has been explained to you. The origins of tattooing are NOT Christian. They're certainly not even Jewish. They are pagan.

Pagans get tattoos in the worship of their gods. That is the history of tattooing. That is why God forbade the Israelites from doing it. In speaking of the pagans and their idol worship, he told them, "do not inquire after their gods, saying, ‘How do these nations serve their gods, that I also may do likewise?’" (Deuteronomy 12:30 NASB).

You see, it has nothing to do with the legalism of law. It has everything to do with being led astray into the worship of idols. Idols which the church likes to dress up and disguise with Christianity. That is what Samaria did. They mixed the true worship of God with the practices of the pagans and, in the end, were not serving God at all, but the pagan gods whose worship practices they copied and adapted into their own worship of God. They were the first to go into exile to Babylonia.

So for those who think they are serving and worshiping God by getting an 'innocent' tattoo like 'John 3:16', or something like that, remember the warning of scripture, and what happened to those who did not heed the warning. Tattooing is how the world worships the false idols of pride, rebellion, and sensuality. It's wrong for the follower of God to inquire as to how the pagans worship their gods and then think those ways can/should be adopted for the worship of God. It's a potential snare and stumbling block to, both, the person getting tattooed, and the people who see it.

Until the origins of tattooing are utterly lost to history, and those who practice it for that reason are gone along with it, this, IMO, is the godly and right judgment for Christians to make about the pagan practice of tattooing. Don't do it. Don't condone it. Period.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You could certainly use a tat to convince yourself that it is a viable conversation starter, but you would only be deceiving yourself into believing it. Do you really think that the Holy Spirit needs a tatt to start a conversation? Really?

I think pulling up a Lamborghini with Jesus is Lord on the side might work. Certainly would like the chance to test it out.

Mike.

Good example for our discussion. It will appeal to the greedy.

My mentor, my pastor, my father in the faith worked for the 700 Club many years ago on Atlanta TV. Someone gave him a Chrysler Cordoba as a gift. When he went to the airport to pick up Pat Robertson, Pat saw it and gave him the thumbs down (can't remember, he may have outright suggested to him to get rid of it). He got rid of it for the very reason tattoos are not good for a Christian's witness--they appeal to the worldly appetites of the flesh, not the spiritual appetites of the Spirit.

Like the car, tattoos draw on a person's carnal and worldly appetites, not the spiritual one's some people think will be aroused in a person who sees these kinds of things being endorsed by the church. We personally may have a clear conscience about them, and not have them arouse worldly appetites inside of us, but it's impossible to expect that many, if not most of those seeing them will. Impossible. That's why the freedom to have tatt's taught in Romans 14 HAS to be governed, at this time in history, by the responsibilities of Romans 14.

 

[Brother Mike]

Like the car, it will draw on a person's carnal and worldly appetites, not the spiritual one's some people think will be aroused in a person who sees these kinds of things being endorsed by the church.

I am glad you saw the comparison. Do we need that conversation piece? I think that is the real question and most Tattoo's are not used for the gospel anyway. For me I would look at the car in a different light because God is good, and God is not broke. If someone gave me a Lamborghini then praise God!!! I have wanted one since High School but I think it's just more of a Been there done that thing now.

A persons Carnal and worldly appetite includes their lust of the flesh and Lust in the bible just means something you want. It's not a bad word depending on what it is you want. The unsaved lust to have food, their bills paid and to be healthy and not hurt. Because of the weight of these things in the lives of many, it's all the focus on to be free of these burdens of the flesh.

Jesus preached the Gospel to the poor so the don't have to be poor no more, I can attest to the supernatural provision of God and having every need met as opposed to always having to do without and nothing to give someone else. So in a since a Lamborghini for the Lord would (Could) show someone that serving God is not a vow of poverty, sickness and bad luck.

It's hard to preach Jesus when you tell those that have lust and need that Jesus will keep you poor, keep you sick, and keep you depressed, nobody wants to sign up for that. This is why so many flocked to Jesus because he was the healer and people hate to constantly hurt all day and not be able to work or function.

One thing though, If I were to get something like the Cordoba or Lamborghini it would have to be from God, if our faith can't get it, then we don't need it. Jesus warned that the Lust (Wanting other things) will choke the Word of God in our life. Being faithful with little means that we take care of it, and don't let it control us. If we can't demonstrate that then why would God even send a Lamborghini our way?

So having things does attract people who have needs and lust. Is that a bad thing? I don't think we should completely discount it all as bad.



Mike.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

LOL looks like we're once again beating the dead horse!

For what it's worth, I voted yes. I think it should be cautiously approached, however.

Some of us want to make sure the dead horse stays on the side of 'don't get them--for the purpose of maintaining good Christian witness to the pagans'.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Like the car, it will draw on a person's carnal and worldly appetites, not the spiritual one's some people think will be aroused in a person who sees these kinds of things being endorsed by the church.

I am glad you saw the comparison. Do we need that conversation piece? I think that is the real question and most Tattoo's are not used for the gospel anyway. For me I would look at the car in a different light because God is good, and God is not broke. If someone gave me a Lamborghini then praise God!!! I have wanted one since High School but I think it's just more of a Been there done that thing now.

A persons Carnal and worldly appetite includes their lust of the flesh and Lust in the bible just means something you want. It's not a bad word depending on what it is you want. The unsaved lust to have food, their bills paid and to be healthy and not hurt. Because of the weight of these things in the lives of many, it's all the focus on to be free of these burdens of the flesh.

Jesus preached the Gospel to the poor so the don't have to be poor no more, I can attest to the supernatural provision of God and having every need met as opposed to always having to do without and nothing to give someone else. So in a since a Lamborghini for the Lord would (Could) show someone that serving God is not a vow of poverty, sickness and bad luck.

It's hard to preach Jesus when you tell those that have lust and need that Jesus will keep you poor, keep you sick, and keep you depressed, nobody wants to sign up for that. This is why so many flocked to Jesus because he was the healer and people hate to constantly hurt all day and not be able to work or function.

One thing though, If I were to get something like the Cordoba or Lamborghini it would have to be from God, if our faith can't get it, then we don't need it. Jesus warned that the Lust (Wanting other things) will choke the Word of God in our life. Being faithful with little means that we take care of it, and don't let it control us. If we can't demonstrate that then why would God even send a Lamborghini our way?

So having things does attract people who have needs and lust. Is that a bad thing? I don't think we should completely discount it all as bad.



Mike.

Don't have time to reply in depth right now.

The pastor who married my wife and I bought a hot looking Camaro in the eigthies. He got in a very bizarre accident that totaled it, while he was unscathed. He took it as a sign that it was an inappropriate witness for a pastor. I agree, even though he was entirely entitled and capable of paying for one and owing it.

 

[farouk]

Hi Jethro.