Poll re. good tattoo artist career for a Christian woman - Part 2

[farouk]

ok fine since you have asked. here is a pic of my sil. show me her tattoos that you can find. they aren't hidden but they are on her wrist on the inside and well many a Christians tattoo themselves this way. so I really don't see the point. If its not up and close you will never know.

[MENTION=11841]jasoncran[/MENTION]:

Wow, quite separately from the tattoos, there is one happy and blessed lady! God bless her and her family.

Wrist is a popular female tattoo placement. Whether the letters 'WWJD' instead of a bracelet, or whatever.

Blessings.

 

[jasoncran]

ok fine since you have asked. here is a pic of my sil. show me her tattoos that you can find. they aren't hidden but they are on her wrist on the inside and well many a Christians tattoo themselves this way. so I really don't see the point. If its not up and close you will never know.

[MENTION=11841]jasoncran[/MENTION]:

Wow, quite separately from the tattoos, there is one happy and blessed lady! God bless her and her family.


Wrist is a popular female tattoo placement. Whether the letters 'WWJD' instead of a bracelet, or whatever.

Blessings.

she has them. "hope"on the left"love" on the right along with one verse on the forearm.none of which is visible. that is my brothers wife. she is his second and is also mother to his youngest at times. she also is younger then my bro. lol. I can relate with that, I was her age when I married my wife. she is 29 now and he is 38. my wife 42 and I 28 when we married. this child will be my bros third. she makes john happy. im glad for them.

 

[farouk]

[MENTION=11841]jasoncran[/MENTION]:

She must be fond of 1 Corinthians 13, then!

If tattoos of 'hope' and 'love' have already been inked, don't be surprised if one day 'faith' also joins the other words, recalling the famous, Biblical trio: 'faith, hope and love'.

Great photo of a happy lady, there.

Blessings.

 

[jasoncran]

the tats for her are done. she has said no tats out in the open.

 

[farouk]

the tats for her are done. she has said no tats out in the open.

[MENTION=11841]jasoncran[/MENTION]:

Sometimes the person feels s/he knows when to draw the line!

(Others find it benignly addictive to get more.)

Blessings.

 

[jasoncran]

no its a job thing.

 

[farouk]

no its a job thing.

[MENTION=11841]jasoncran[/MENTION]:

Oh I see, yes. Some jobs require professional men and women to cover them.

Actually in my area, it doesn't always seem to work that way. Particularly in the summer months when short sleeves are worn, there are women bank officials locally who don't feel inhibited, either by custom or the management, from having their tattoos showing.

So I guess it varies, not only from job to job but from area to area also.

Blessings.

 

[farouk]

Originally Posted by Jeni Ruth
I guess for our family the question of whether or not to be tattooed was already made as I had 12 tats and my hubby had 4 when we were first saved. Certainly the style and reason for our tats changed after being saved. Five of our 6 kids are also inked [ages 28-35] ..(from Christian hyphen tattoos dot com )

Originally Posted by Beth Smith
My two daughters, 18 and 17, want to get matching heart tattoos ..
We have even talked about all getting tattoos together. When my youngest turns 18, my oldest will be 19 and I will be 49. I would definitely have a cross with scripture. Here are a few of my favorite scriptures:
James 2:13
Mercy triumphs over judgment.
Romans 12:12
Be joyful in hope,
patient in affliction,
faithful in prayer.
Philippians 1:19
God bless,
Beth (from lauraleighparker dot com )

In fact, quite often, as seen from these quotes, with testimony all wrapped up in them, they amount to expressions of family joy, really.

Everyone is different, but often it's a family thing as well as an individual thing.

(So there's undoubtedly a demand for tattoo artists that are sensitive particularly to the needs of Christian clients.)

Blessings.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Some parlors are more like salons, that attract their often 60% to 70% female clientele.

Haven't you realized it's because of the sexualizing of tattooing in our society?

What you are trying so hard to portray as innocent is, generally speaking, simply not that. It's just not.

 

[farouk]

Some parlors are more like salons, that attract their often 60% to 70% female clientele.

Haven't you realized it's because of the sexualizing of tattooing in our society?

What you are trying so hard to portray as innocent is, generally speaking, simply not that. It's just not.

@Jethro Bodine :

Some designs might be overtly provocative in terms of their designs and content.

But I would be hard pressed to say this about all the homeschooling moms and grammas that have their kids' and grandkids' dates of birth on their wrists, or with Bible refs. 'WWJD', or the Christian fish sign <><, etc. To try to do so would be to paint with a very broad brush indeed.

This kind of underlines mygraine's point in the OP that for a Christian woman it can be helpful if the parlor environment is friendly to Chrisian women, such is the demand for the service.

Blessings.

(PS: I suppose in the same vein as your comment some people could also try to argue that the many preachers' wives who happen to paint their lips, wear rings in their ears and wear high heels are supposedly trying allure people to perdition. But, frankly, few people would agree.)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

(PS: I suppose in the same vein as your comment some people could also try to argue that the many preachers' wives who happen to paint their lips, wear rings in their ears and wear high heels are supposedly trying allure people to perdition. But, frankly, few people would agree.)

So, if enough people agree or disagree with something that makes it okay? You know what the Bible says about excessive adornment. Just because the church has adopted the ways of the world in regard to women's dress (to a very limited extent) it's okay to do that with tattoos too?

The important thing to realize is the meaning of dress has changed. The meaning of tattoos has not. You're trying to compare the proverbial apples and oranges you talked about earlier in a post. But as more and more naive people endorse tattooing in the church this will change as societal norms change. Until then it's impossible to compare dress to tattoos. For now tattoos still largely communicate that which they did from the beginning in our society--an underlying value system of worldliness. Whether that's actually true one person to the next is unknown. The point I'm making is it still communicates that in our society whether we want to acknowledge it or not.

 

[farouk]

(PS: I suppose in the same vein as your comment some people could also try to argue that the many preachers' wives who happen to paint their lips, wear rings in their ears and wear high heels are supposedly trying allure people to perdition. But, frankly, few people would agree.)

So, if enough people agree or disagree with something that makes it okay? You know what the Bible says about excessive adornment. Just because the church has adopted the ways of the world in regard to women's dress (to a very limited extent) it's okay to do that with tattoos too?

The important thing to realize is the meaning of dress has changed. The meaning of tattoos has not. You're trying to compare the proverbial apples and oranges you talked about earlier in a post. But as more and more naive people endorse tattooing in the church this will change as societal norms change. Until then it's impossible to compare dress to tattoos. For now tattoos still largely communicate that which they did from the beginning in our society--an underlying value system of worldliness. Whether that's actually true one person to the next is unknown. The point I'm making is it still communicates that in our society whether we want to acknowledge it or not.

@Jethro Bodine :

Sorry, I don't quite get what your point is.

On the one hand you seem actually to say that lipstick, earrings and heels are wrong.

On the other you are saying that because tattoos are (notionally) wrong, therefore they can't be compared with such widespread practices as the wearing of the above.

In fact, I think you'll find that tattoos, too, are very widespead, as well as those other items.

Unlike those other items, tattoos have the design potential to communicate a direct, faith based message.

Blessings.

PS: I'm certainly not arguing for 'excessive adornment', as you say.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

(PS: I suppose in the same vein as your comment some people could also try to argue that the many preachers' wives who happen to paint their lips, wear rings in their ears and wear high heels are supposedly trying allure people to perdition. But, frankly, few people would agree.)

So, if enough people agree or disagree with something that makes it okay? You know what the Bible says about excessive adornment. Just because the church has adopted the ways of the world in regard to women's dress (to a very limited extent) it's okay to do that with tattoos too?

The important thing to realize is the meaning of dress has changed. The meaning of tattoos has not. You're trying to compare the proverbial apples and oranges you talked about earlier in a post. But as more and more naive people endorse tattooing in the church this will change as societal norms change. Until then it's impossible to compare dress to tattoos. For now tattoos still largely communicate that which they did from the beginning in our society--an underlying value system of worldliness. Whether that's actually true one person to the next is unknown. The point I'm making is it still communicates that in our society whether we want to acknowledge it or not.

[MENTION=88699]Jethro Bodine[/MENTION]:

Sorry, I don't quite get what your point is.

On the one hand you seem actually to say that lipstick, earrings and heels are wrong.

On the other you are saying that because tattoos are (notionally) wrong, therefore they can't be compared with such widespread practices as the wearing of the above.

In fact, I think you'll find that tattoos, too, are very widespead, as well as those other items.

Unlike those other items, tattoos have the design potential to communicate a direct, faith based message.

Blessings.

Dress was never categorically wrong. Tattoos are (were).

Certain dress is prohibited in scripture. It's subjective. Tattooing is not. But you are trying to make it subjective like dress.

And if you think there is not a pastor's wife who is out of line with how they dress you got another thing coming. And worse, that you think all of the church is somehow okay with it? You can't use their error to endorse the error of tattooing. Now do you understand my point a little better?

 

[handy]

The meaning of tattoos has not.

What is the meaning of tattoos that has not changed?

 

[farouk]

Dress was never categorically wrong. Tattoos are (were).

Certain dress is prohibited in scripture. It's subjective. Tattooing is not. But you are trying to make it subjective like dress.

And if you think there is not a pastor's wife who is out of line with how they dress you got another thing coming. And worse, that you think all of the church is somehow okay with it? You can't use their error to endorse the error of tattooing. Now do you understand my point a little better?

[MENTION=88699]Jethro Bodine[/MENTION]:

You're using my previous comments to suggest I think no pastor's wife can dress inappropriately? Oh well.

Cutting for the dead is against what Leviticus says; but then make sure a man also doesn't trim the corners of his beard; it says so in the same passage. Do preachers shave? (Even then the New Testament believer is not under the power of the law).

Romans 14, and its treatise for Christian liberty, would seem to suggest that Christians under grace might well choose to use such a means to communicate faith.

(Though maybe you and I don't see dispensational issues in the same light.)

Blessings.

 

[farouk]

The meaning of tattoos has not.

What is the meaning of tattoos that has not changed?

[MENTION=4376]handy[/MENTION]:

Yes, I wondered what this was, too.

Blessings.

PS: I think several women from your church have had tattoos done, you said.

 

[Ryan]

The meaning of tattoos has not.

What is the meaning of tattoos that has not changed?

From ancient times, tattoo's or the cutting of one's skin has been associated with paganism and is a satanic aspiration. We are to be different from the world. Be Holy for I am Holy is found in where? 1 Peter 1:16; but where is it quoting it from? Where is that phrase that is written in the "New" Testament could possibly come from? Well, it can be found in the beginning of Leviticus 19:2 for one place, among several others in Leviticus. But also at the end in Leviticus 19 in verse 37 it exhorts us to follow his commandments. So in between being told to be holy and to follow his commandments, is a passage saying not to cut your skin. Well I am sorry, God is much smarter then I am, and if he said once, and he only has to say it once to not do it, I believe he knows what is best for me and trust him unfailingly.

The subtle selling of tattooing under the pretext of it being a "witness" tool with the guise of more and more Christians are doing it makes it no more right.

And it goes back to the beginning with Adam, "Did God really say...?"

Malachi 3:6
“For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

If you look really hard, strong parallels can be made between the theory of evolution and the theory of dispensationalism. If you'd like, I can quote a comparison I heard for amusements sake.

 

[farouk]

The meaning of tattoos has not.

What is the meaning of tattoos that has not changed?

From ancient times, tattoo's or the cutting of one's skin has been associated with paganism and is a satanic aspiration. We are to be different from the world. Be Holy for I am Holy is found in where? 1 Peter 1:16; but where is it quoting it from? Where is that phrase that is written in the "New" Testament could possibly come from? Well, it can be found in the beginning of Leviticus 19:2 for one place, among several others in Leviticus. But also at the end in Leviticus 19 in verse 37 it exhorts us to follow his commandments. So in between being told to be holy and to follow his commandments, is a passage saying not to cut your skin. Well I am sorry, God is much smarter then I am, and if he said once, and he only has to say it once to not do it, I believe he knows what is best for me and trust him unfailingly.

The subtle selling of tattooing under the pretext of it being a "witness" tool with the guise of more and more Christians are doing it makes it no more right.

And it goes back to the beginning with Adam, "Did God really say...?"

Malachi 3:6
“For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

If you look really hard, strong parallels can be made between the theory of evolution and the theory of dispensationalism. If you'd like, I can quote a comparison I heard for amusements sake.

Ryan:

If you're trying to prove that dispensational Christians support evolution, and in the same vein prove also some point about tattoos, I suppose the use of needles for preventive medical purposes would also similarly be a no-no (I don't think you're arguing this, but it might be argued to be logical, from your perspective).

Blessings.

 

[Ryan]

The meaning of tattoos has not.

What is the meaning of tattoos that has not changed?

From ancient times, tattoo's or the cutting of one's skin has been associated with paganism and is a satanic aspiration. We are to be different from the world. Be Holy for I am Holy is found in where? 1 Peter 1:16; but where is it quoting it from? Where is that phrase that is written in the "New" Testament could possibly come from? Well, it can be found in the beginning of Leviticus 19:2 for one place, among several others in Leviticus. But also at the end in Leviticus 19 in verse 37 it exhorts us to follow his commandments. So in between being told to be holy and to follow his commandments, is a passage saying not to cut your skin. Well I am sorry, God is much smarter then I am, and if he said once, and he only has to say it once to not do it, I believe he knows what is best for me and trust him unfailingly.

The subtle selling of tattooing under the pretext of it being a "witness" tool with the guise of more and more Christians are doing it makes it no more right.

And it goes back to the beginning with Adam, "Did God really say...?"

Malachi 3:6
“For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.

If you look really hard, strong parallels can be made between the theory of evolution and the theory of dispensationalism. If you'd like, I can quote a comparison I heard for amusements sake.

Ryan:

If you're trying to prove that dispensational Christians support evolution, and in the same vein prove also some point about tattoos, I suppose the use of needles for preventive medical purposes would also similarly be a no-no (I don't think you're arguing this, but it might be argued to be logical, from your perspective).

Blessings.

It is not that dispy's believe in evolution, merely the parallels are undeniable. Primitive man transforming into now modern, smart, upright walking man is the same as saying primitive, law based Jewry has now evolved into modern, upright walking Christian man being the new creation living by grace. That is the basis of evolution, and the basis of dispy thinking. Both evolved out of the same time period to coincidentally. Now back to tat's.

Jesus always taught preserving life, took precedence over commandments such as the Sabbath. Refer to Luke 14:1-5. So no, that isn't my logic or perspective.

So did God really say getting tat's is now permissible? Not only permissible, to be encouraged?

Daniel 7:25 is clear prophetically speaking that a war will be waged where the adversary will try to make changes in times and laws. It is unfortunate within the body of believers, we are doing the dirty work for him, and encouraging others to do the same. What's next? Tarot card readings at your local church?

Sorry if what I am saying is coming on strong, but that is the truth in the scriptures.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You're using my previous comments to suggest I think no pastor's wife can dress inappropriately? Oh well.

Then clarify. Are you making the point that the way some pastor's wives dress really is okay, and so tattoos are okay, too; or that the church accepts something that is obviously wrong and, therefore, should (or has to) accept tattoos, also?

Cutting for the dead is against what Leviticus says; but then make sure a man also doesn't trim the corners of his beard; it says so in the same passage. Do preachers shave? (Even then the New Testament believer is not under the power of the law).

It's what those things signified, not the acts in and of themselves. This is what I've been trying to get across to you when I say it's not the content of the tattoo that makes it right or wrong, but just the fact you're doing it.

Of course you'll still want to say the cutting of beards is that, too. But that is no longer true for beards. But tattoos have not become as beards and matters of dress. They will one day now that many like yourself are bringing tattooing into the church. But that hasn't happened yet. As I said, despite many naive people indulging the practice, tattooing is still known to be rooted in rebellion and sensuality and closely connected with a personal value system that exalts and approves of those things. I'm not saying everyone who has a tattoo has that value system. I'm saying that's what tattooing still communicates in our western culture, despite your insistence that it can, or does, communicate the opposite, or at least nothing either way.

Romans 14, and its treatise for Christian liberty, would seem to suggest that Christians under grace might well choose to use such a means to communicate faith.

(Though maybe you and I don't see dispensational issues in the same light.)

Blessings.

I'm not coming at this from a law perspective (though the law is very clear on the matter). So there's no need to visit the dispensational issue about the requirements of the law.

I don't know how you get out of Romans 14 that we can adopt known pagan practices, known to be utterly and undeniably rooted in rebellion and sensuality in our western culture, to somehow communicate the gospel. I get how you can think it's okay for you to do for yourself...covered up and out of sight so as not to cause someone else to violate their own conscience about the matter. That I see in Romans 14. I do not see an endorsement for using known pagan practices and worldly values to further the gospel.

edit: Romans 14 is actually speaking of suppressing known pagan practices in order to further the work of Christ. It is a chapter about forfeiting one's legitimate freedoms for the sake of Christ, not indulging them for the sake of Christ.