farouk
Member
Just goes to show that the artwork possibilities can be adapted for all sorts of things. They are a talking point. (Which is also why I think it's hard to deny that faith based designs are not effective.)
Blessings.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Poll: Respecting her tattoo wish
- Thread starter farouk
- Start date
Just goes to show that the artwork possibilities can be adapted for all sorts of things. They are a talking point. (Which is also why I think it's hard to deny that faith based designs are not effective.)
Blessings.
farouk
Member
farouk
Member
Ye shall not eat [any thing] with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.
Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I [am] the LORD.
Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.
Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I [am] the LORD.
[Lev 19:26-30 KJV]
Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I [am] the LORD.
Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.
Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I [am] the LORD.
[Lev 19:26-30 KJV]
Twice we hear, "I [am] the LORD."
I have a neatly trimmed beard. I don't grow it long and mar it in order to look like heathen who at that time made cuttings in their flesh for the dead, I don't try to make myself look like those who are dedicated to other gods. God forbade His children from participating in the pagan religious rituals of the people living around them. That's why I don't take a strong position and come right out and say, "Hey! It is sin!" It is an issue that falls to the category of "debatable matters." That does not mean that it is not profitable for instruction, for reproof and necessary as a guide given for our benefit.
So you won't hear me say, "Sinner," as I snear at others. My sin is too great for me to consider that when the better alternative is to consider the Goodness and Loving Kindness of our Father. Still, it does remain our burden to speak and to instruct regarding what the Word of Truth states about our need to pay attention not only to our own good conscience before God but also the conscience of our weaker brother.
I'll post a story to illustrate.
One moment, coming right up...
~Sparrow
Last edited:
I recently went to Tacoma to visit with my family. It was a blessing. During our dinner conversation my brother-in-law spoke up to relay a story about his recent hair cut. His wife (my sister) had went with him as well as their grandchild, now 19 years of age. My brother-in-law suggested that his grandson should get his hair cut by a certain female stylist. While speaking of her, he made a gesture, expanded his chest and mimicked a person stretching. It was obvious that he was, in his own way, complimenting her physical attributes more than her abilities as a stylist.
His daughter (now 42 years of age) was there and used the word "inappropriate" in her reply to his comment. We all knew what he was talking about and her statement, "You just like getting your hair cut by women with large breasts," didn't do anything but put an exclaimation point on the comment and gesture just made.
Now, you need to know that my brother-in-law has been a faithful husband all his life. He does not hide his thoughts and makes no apology. His daughter is correct when she observes that certain taboos within our society are there for reason and I would echo her concern for the teaching that was being given (by way of example) to her child.
So then comes my question: What would you say if someone were to pretend that there would be no problems with oogling and commenting on the physical attributes of women in public? Is it perfectly acceptable (in your sight) as long as the wife keeps her objections to herself? Would we be better to ignore Job's good advice for the advice and example of my brother-in-law?
Paul address this in general when he speaks about meat that is offered to idols. We know that to us the eating of such things is of no consequence. But what about the weaker brother? What of his conscience? Shall we teach my young nephew to ogle women because we know that in his heart there is no sin, no infidelity, no betrayal?
Or would it be better to admonish according to the Word of God (without regard to our personal permissions) and quote Job whom God Himself called righteous? Job made an covenant with his eyes reasoning that he should not so much as look upon a woman in any displeasing manner (displeasing to God, that is) because he knew what God planned to do to all those joined in that sin.
Avoid even the appearance of evil makes sense as far as teaching the pure milk of the Word goes. So does the admonition to buy the truth and sell it not. What price can we put on the desire for the pure milk of the Word that is sacrificed to our private wants? What shall we teach here? God first and then love others as self, or love self first and foremost? If it is the latter the way that is called narrow has suddenly broadened into a freeway, emphasis on the free. The burden that we share with one another and our need to become our brother's keeper is not the burden that Jesus promised to lift.
To be clear, let me say, "I am not against tattoos. I do stand firmly against false teaching."
~Sparrow
His daughter (now 42 years of age) was there and used the word "inappropriate" in her reply to his comment. We all knew what he was talking about and her statement, "You just like getting your hair cut by women with large breasts," didn't do anything but put an exclaimation point on the comment and gesture just made.
Now, you need to know that my brother-in-law has been a faithful husband all his life. He does not hide his thoughts and makes no apology. His daughter is correct when she observes that certain taboos within our society are there for reason and I would echo her concern for the teaching that was being given (by way of example) to her child.
So then comes my question: What would you say if someone were to pretend that there would be no problems with oogling and commenting on the physical attributes of women in public? Is it perfectly acceptable (in your sight) as long as the wife keeps her objections to herself? Would we be better to ignore Job's good advice for the advice and example of my brother-in-law?
Paul address this in general when he speaks about meat that is offered to idols. We know that to us the eating of such things is of no consequence. But what about the weaker brother? What of his conscience? Shall we teach my young nephew to ogle women because we know that in his heart there is no sin, no infidelity, no betrayal?
Or would it be better to admonish according to the Word of God (without regard to our personal permissions) and quote Job whom God Himself called righteous? Job made an covenant with his eyes reasoning that he should not so much as look upon a woman in any displeasing manner (displeasing to God, that is) because he knew what God planned to do to all those joined in that sin.
Avoid even the appearance of evil makes sense as far as teaching the pure milk of the Word goes. So does the admonition to buy the truth and sell it not. What price can we put on the desire for the pure milk of the Word that is sacrificed to our private wants? What shall we teach here? God first and then love others as self, or love self first and foremost? If it is the latter the way that is called narrow has suddenly broadened into a freeway, emphasis on the free. The burden that we share with one another and our need to become our brother's keeper is not the burden that Jesus promised to lift.
To be clear, let me say, "I am not against tattoos. I do stand firmly against false teaching."
~Sparrow
Last edited:
farouk
Member
Hi Sparrowhawke:
I agree about the inappropriate behavior which you observed and mentioned, which demeans women. So, yes, I agree.
When it comes to something like, for example, a Christian fish sign <>< on a wrist, whether as a bracelet or a tattoo, I would personally not see it as either demeaning or offensive to the wearer, as the behavior which you mentioned and which you right called into question. (Some tattoos, though, might well be offensive and demeaning.)
In terms of the conscience, I guess the motive for it has many variables, as does the design.
Blessings.
Jethro Bodine
Member
Farouk, you seem to be still missing that this is about the other person's conscience, not the person's with the tattoo.
We are to forego our freedoms when our freedoms cause others to stumble. The last thing you want young people coming out of the world to be snared by is the things associated with the lifestyle they are leaving. And even those who are sure of their strength to resist the pride and sensuality of having a tattoo should not be tempting that possibility. But the overwhelming factor here is what your freedom to get a tattoo means to others. Christianity is all about rescuing people from the ways of the world, not helping them indulge them and somehow still maintain their Christianity. When a Christian gets a tattoo they're potentially making it harder for another Christian to turn away from the ways of the world. .
Given the nature of tattoos, the they are permanent, and not easily or cheaply removed, I think it absurd that someone would get a tattoo. I really do.
Add to that, that you'll be considered an unbeliever first, before you can show you are a Christian, makes it all the more unreasonable for a Christian to get a tattoo, or add one to what they already have.
We are to forego our freedoms when our freedoms cause others to stumble. The last thing you want young people coming out of the world to be snared by is the things associated with the lifestyle they are leaving. And even those who are sure of their strength to resist the pride and sensuality of having a tattoo should not be tempting that possibility. But the overwhelming factor here is what your freedom to get a tattoo means to others. Christianity is all about rescuing people from the ways of the world, not helping them indulge them and somehow still maintain their Christianity. When a Christian gets a tattoo they're potentially making it harder for another Christian to turn away from the ways of the world. .
Given the nature of tattoos, the they are permanent, and not easily or cheaply removed, I think it absurd that someone would get a tattoo. I really do.
Add to that, that you'll be considered an unbeliever first, before you can show you are a Christian, makes it all the more unreasonable for a Christian to get a tattoo, or add one to what they already have.
Jethro Bodine
Member
A believer who has tattoos from a former lifestyle has an uphill battle ahead of them to show they are really now Christian. But the believer who gets and endorses tattoos as a Christian, IMO, has an almost insurmountable task ahead of them of ever convincing people they are really a Christian. At least the believer who got their tattoos in their past life can renounce the practice and show their repentance that way. But the believer who has chosen that lifestyle and continues to get and endorse them...what can they do?
My example did not seek your agreement about what is or what is not inappropriate as that is relative to a variety of cultures. Instead I spoke directly to the issue: Teaching and instruction in wisdom. Please do not deflect the point of my conversations. Your reply does not address the issue. Is it correct to teach in all uprightness and consider the conscience of the weaker brother while speaking of Christian Liberty? That's my take on what Paul said about meats offered to idols.
How do you deal with those wise and compassionate words inspired by the Holiness of God?
tandemcpl
Member
This is a battle I know all too well. I have a quarter sleeve tattoos on both my upper arms and a quarter sleeve tattoo on my right forearm, along with a half calf tattoo on my right leg. Even when I was a heathen I knew enough to make sure all the tattoos I got could be covered up while at a job interview. Even in the world tattoos are looked at in a negative way by many.
Now I have to make sure they are covered up when I meet new individuals who are Christian to make the uphill battle a little easier. If they get to know me before they see my tattoos it makes it much easier.
I also struggle with whether or not to let them show while in church. That is why I’m not shy about proclaiming that I think Christians should not get tattoos. They are a part of the old self and a part of the world that we are told, by God, to forsake. Furthermore, I would be greatly saddened if one of the young adults in the church I attend came up to me and showed me a tattoo that I inspired.
Be blessed.
Toby
Toby,
Thank you for your considered thoughts in this regard. Your savior is strong. We are children of God who looks at and gives His regard to hearts and when I hear your testimony, my heart echo's your sentiments.
It's not just tats that mark us. Each person has been delivered from an old and failing system that is soon to pass. What of me and my transgressions? God chooses the beggarly elements of this earth to better show His glory. It's a Godly thing to have put the old man and his ways aside, to have forsaken the old ways - while aspiring to walk no longer according to the flesh, but instead according to the Spirit that God may receive His due.
All have sinned; not all have repented. I'm not one to point at others while looking for sin. Mine is much before me and there is no need to look at others. His is to forgive, to accept, to cleanse and yes, also to purge us (me) as we are His possession, no longer subject to the needs to be a part of any unwholesome activity.
If you see continuation of that as part of an old life, part of something that could be called your offering, your sacrifice? Then you also necessarily see the reward that Your Father has ready for you upon the day of your revealing. There is nothing you may do that does not catch His interest.
It is good to be counted among the saints of God no matter the old. What shall we call our greatest source of JOY? Shall it not be what James declares that our chiefest joy is: the things that we call "trials of our faith" that we find along the way? When we are in eternity and look back with the wisdom of the ages to consider such things it is our voice that shall declare, "I thank God for His long-suffering toward me and it was in trial that I have been forged."
Wisdom has been given. Wisdom is being shared. My prayer is that I am given an ear to hear it because this applies beyond ink, beyond outward appearance. It applies to inner man and to our walk with Jesus, The Christ. It is part of what was once called, "The Way."
Thank you for your considered thoughts in this regard. Your savior is strong. We are children of God who looks at and gives His regard to hearts and when I hear your testimony, my heart echo's your sentiments.
It's not just tats that mark us. Each person has been delivered from an old and failing system that is soon to pass. What of me and my transgressions? God chooses the beggarly elements of this earth to better show His glory. It's a Godly thing to have put the old man and his ways aside, to have forsaken the old ways - while aspiring to walk no longer according to the flesh, but instead according to the Spirit that God may receive His due.
All have sinned; not all have repented. I'm not one to point at others while looking for sin. Mine is much before me and there is no need to look at others. His is to forgive, to accept, to cleanse and yes, also to purge us (me) as we are His possession, no longer subject to the needs to be a part of any unwholesome activity.
If you see continuation of that as part of an old life, part of something that could be called your offering, your sacrifice? Then you also necessarily see the reward that Your Father has ready for you upon the day of your revealing. There is nothing you may do that does not catch His interest.
It is good to be counted among the saints of God no matter the old. What shall we call our greatest source of JOY? Shall it not be what James declares that our chiefest joy is: the things that we call "trials of our faith" that we find along the way? When we are in eternity and look back with the wisdom of the ages to consider such things it is our voice that shall declare, "I thank God for His long-suffering toward me and it was in trial that I have been forged."
Wisdom has been given. Wisdom is being shared. My prayer is that I am given an ear to hear it because this applies beyond ink, beyond outward appearance. It applies to inner man and to our walk with Jesus, The Christ. It is part of what was once called, "The Way."
After reading about tatts here for a couple years here are a few observations.
A lot of time has gone into the promotion of tatttoos
....this time could have gone to something else what ever something else might be.
my aversion to Christians, first or anyone, getting tatts has grown stronger.
The liberty we have in Christ should not be used as justification to try so hard to look like the world.
Tatts are not unto salvation , not a SIN just not a good idea...
Sometimes i am pleased to be a "church lady"
A lot of time has gone into the promotion of tatttoos
....this time could have gone to something else what ever something else might be.
my aversion to Christians, first or anyone, getting tatts has grown stronger.
The liberty we have in Christ should not be used as justification to try so hard to look like the world.
Tatts are not unto salvation , not a SIN just not a good idea...
Sometimes i am pleased to be a "church lady"
farouk
Member
Thanks for all your thoughts, guys.
This might suprise some of you but I rationallly don't see myself actually as promoting tattoos. (Some might feel they read my thoughts better than I do myself...!)
But tattoos are out there in a big way, and if they are in faith based designs (Bible ref.; Christian fish sign <><, etc.) they might do some good. Somewhere. Someplace.
To take up Sparrowhawke's and Jethro's point, I don't think I'm avoiding the issue. To home in on a Christian fish sign in ink on skin and make it kind of a unique focus on whether someone somewhere would be offended — when its Christian witness purpose would seem to be clear anyway — would seem logically to open up a whole can of worms in terms of what else, too?
Yes, avoid what can be overtly categorized as meat offered to idols.
But there are also many shades of categorization and if something is greatly outweighed by witness opportunities it might not be in this category after all. Or at least some Christians might reasonably think this way.
Some Christians might be offended by Japanese automobiles. ("My grandad was ill-treated by the Japanese in WW2".) Some Christians - Canadians? - might be offended at the US government's fining of Toyota while bailing out Detroit.
But it does not follow that I should not drive either Toyotas or cars made in Detroit, "in case" someone who also might be a Christian is offended.
There does need to be a strong case made for whatever it is before it really belongs in the meat offered to idols category, I would submit.
Thanks again, & blessings.
This might suprise some of you but I rationallly don't see myself actually as promoting tattoos. (Some might feel they read my thoughts better than I do myself...!)
But tattoos are out there in a big way, and if they are in faith based designs (Bible ref.; Christian fish sign <><, etc.) they might do some good. Somewhere. Someplace.
To take up Sparrowhawke's and Jethro's point, I don't think I'm avoiding the issue. To home in on a Christian fish sign in ink on skin and make it kind of a unique focus on whether someone somewhere would be offended — when its Christian witness purpose would seem to be clear anyway — would seem logically to open up a whole can of worms in terms of what else, too?
Yes, avoid what can be overtly categorized as meat offered to idols.
But there are also many shades of categorization and if something is greatly outweighed by witness opportunities it might not be in this category after all. Or at least some Christians might reasonably think this way.
Some Christians might be offended by Japanese automobiles. ("My grandad was ill-treated by the Japanese in WW2".) Some Christians - Canadians? - might be offended at the US government's fining of Toyota while bailing out Detroit.
But it does not follow that I should not drive either Toyotas or cars made in Detroit, "in case" someone who also might be a Christian is offended.
There does need to be a strong case made for whatever it is before it really belongs in the meat offered to idols category, I would submit.
Thanks again, & blessings.
Last edited:
Jethro Bodine
Member
While we wait the twenty or thirty years for that to maybe be true, remember that "faith-based clothing or jewelry" will not cause a weak person to fall back into their old lifestyle. It's impossible to compare tattoos to lapel pins, t-shirts, bread boards, etc. (Which reminds me, I'm wearing my 'turn or burn' bread board to work today.)
Jethro Bodine
Member
Farouk, you're not understanding the concept of 'offense' and 'stumbling'.
If this were just about ruffling someone feathers who just happens to not like tattoos this would not be a legitimate argument. But, as tandemcpl pointed out, this is about causing younger, weaker believers to stumble and end back up in the snare of the world all over again.
Paul says we are to be careful that our freedoms don't cause this to happen to someone Christ died for. For me it's secular rock and roll music. I personally don't have a problem with it (I know where my personal boundaries are concerning it). But if a weaker brother sees me indulging it who doesn't know, or have any personal safe boundaries, I could cause them to fall back into that which secular rock and roll music meant and represented to them personally in their former life. I don't want that on my conscience. Nor do I want to see a believer ruined by falling back into the ways and mindset of the world.
Last edited:
Again, farouk, again I ask and now ask please do not take up my words and change their intent.
I've taken pains to explain over and over that I am not saying what you say I am saying.
You've said, "To take up Sparrowhawke's and Jethro's point, I don't think I'm avoiding the issue. To home in on a Christian fish sign in ink on skin and make it kind of a unique focus on whether someone somewhere would be offended."
My point has nothing to do with somebody being offended or not. If you are unable to understand me, you will need to stop trying to speak for me. That's actually against the Terms of Service and a violation of your agreement when you do stuff like this and lie about what I've said. So stop.
But before you argue with me and force me to ask other Moderators here to help me establish my meaning look at the example you gave, "Some Christians might be offended by Japanese automobiles."
Again, I'm not telling you that you must live according to what may or may not offend somebody somewhere. The message that has been repeated almost endlessly has nothing to do with Japanese automobiles and in point of fact also does not consider ink on the body but only the responsibility of each Christian to avoid putting a block of stumbling onto the path that others will follow.
SparrowHawke
I've taken pains to explain over and over that I am not saying what you say I am saying.
You've said, "To take up Sparrowhawke's and Jethro's point, I don't think I'm avoiding the issue. To home in on a Christian fish sign in ink on skin and make it kind of a unique focus on whether someone somewhere would be offended."
My point has nothing to do with somebody being offended or not. If you are unable to understand me, you will need to stop trying to speak for me. That's actually against the Terms of Service and a violation of your agreement when you do stuff like this and lie about what I've said. So stop.
But before you argue with me and force me to ask other Moderators here to help me establish my meaning look at the example you gave, "Some Christians might be offended by Japanese automobiles."
Again, I'm not telling you that you must live according to what may or may not offend somebody somewhere. The message that has been repeated almost endlessly has nothing to do with Japanese automobiles and in point of fact also does not consider ink on the body but only the responsibility of each Christian to avoid putting a block of stumbling onto the path that others will follow.
SparrowHawke
farouk
Member
Again, farouk, again I ask and now ask please do not take up my words and change their intent.
I've taken pains to explain over and over that I am not saying what you say I am saying.
You've said, "To take up Sparrowhawke's and Jethro's point, I don't think I'm avoiding the issue. To home in on a Christian fish sign in ink on skin and make it kind of a unique focus on whether someone somewhere would be offended."
My point has nothing to do with somebody being offended or not. If you are unable to understand me, you will need to stop trying to speak for me. That's actually against the Terms of Service and a violation of your agreement when you do stuff like this and lie about what I've said. So stop.
But before you argue with me and force me to ask other Moderators here to help me establish my meaning look at the example you gave, "Some Christians might be offended by Japanese automobiles."
Again, I'm not telling you that you must live according to what may or may not offend somebody somewhere. The message that has been repeated almost endlessly has nothing to do with Japanese automobiles and in point of fact also does not consider ink on the body but only the responsibility of each Christian to avoid putting a block of stumbling onto the path that others will follow.
Actually I'm not trying to mis-represent you or anyone, Brother.
I guess I'm asking, why is it uniquely tattoos that take on the aura of something that needs to be completely avoided, in your view. Or maybe you're not saying this.
You speak of pushing Christians back into the world, and yes, this is indeed to be avoided at all costs. I do wonder whether a Christian fish sign on a wrist, however, will actually cause this, or whether most Christians would reasonably assume that this would be the likely result of someone getting a Christian fish sign inked on a wrist.
Blessings.