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

[farouk]

[MENTION=4376]handy[/MENTION]: You see that even while you've been away, this thread had mushroomed over the past few hours; like you said, it's an interesting discussion. Blessings.

 

[farouk]

as a bad habit, when I see the mothers who had tats and are attractive in church. I assumed that they were promiscuous in the their former lives....

[MENTION=11841]jasoncran[/MENTION]: (Didn't spot your earlier post till later.)

Well it might be so with some.

But I don't see it a inherently or necessarily so. For example, wrists or arms that have a God honoring sentiment inked, whether a Christian fish symbol <><, or a Scripture ref., or 'God bless our family' etc. can't be particularly linked with bad behavior.

(My thoughts.)

Blessings.

PS: when many women in church in summer wear short sleeves, it would be hard to expect moms or grammas with faith based tattoos on their arms to cover them.

 

[jasoncran]

an 80 yr old or 40 year old?. that tattoo can simply be a wolf or what not. it doesn't have to be sensual for a man to make that assumption.just the location of it.my wife was grandma at 41

 

[farouk]

an 80 yr old or 40 year old?. that tattoo can simply be a wolf or what not. it doesn't have to be sensual for a man to make that assumption.just the location of it.my wife was grandma at 41

@jasoncran :

What I would question is whether the assumption is accurate, though.

One could be arbitrary and also list out other articles of clothing or jewelry that some people might not approve of, but as long as the person is modest overall, I don't think the believer is called on to make such 'rules' for others.

I appreciate what you are saying, in that some people who may have struggled in the past, might want to avert their gaze from other people in a chuch setting.

For example also, it's possible that some men might have had an obsession with legs, for instance, but it wouldn't be appropriate - other than to expect general modesty - to demand that Victorian style floor-length dresses or long pants always be worn by women in church. (I wouldn't have thought that this would be a feasible expectation, anyway.)

People do need to respect each others' backgrounds and sensibilities, though, and err on on the cautious side, perhaps.

Blessings.

 

[jasoncran]

its kinda hard when they wear short shorts and also skirts that you can see the edge of it or when its on their shoulders.some at work have it around their cleaveage.

 

[divinecloud7]

Better safe than sorry, taking into the account of modesty. After all tattoos can be construed and in general is a form of makeup; permanent makeup. Avoid it and be safe......usually heathens and pagans are known to practice body inking.

"People need to ask themselves why they need ink on the epidermis of they're skin...what are they really trying to illicit or present or represent?"

Praise be to GOD the heavenly father and his son lord JESUS CHRIST forever>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[farouk]

Better safe than sorry, taking into the account of modesty. After all tattoos can be construed and in general is a form of makeup; permanent makeup. Avoid it and be safe......usually heathens and pagans are known to practice body inking.

"People need to ask themselves why they need ink on the epidermis of they're skin...what are they really trying to illicit or present or represent?"

Praise be to GOD the heavenly father and his son lord JESUS CHRIST forever>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hi [MENTION=96271]divinecloud7[/MENTION]:

I can appreciate the idea that you have. Modesty is good.

Re. make up, I would just point out that a lot of preachers' wives and daughters would normally wear make up, though maybe not to excess.

Sometimes the motivation for a tattoo is a God honoring design.

Blessings.

 

[farouk]

its kinda hard when they wear short shorts and also skirts that you can see the edge of it or when its on their shoulders.some at work have it around their cleaveage.

@jasoncran :

I can appreciate your struggles, yes.

What I guess I'm trying to say is that carelessness about modesty might not actually extend to something such as a Bible ref., Christian fish sign <>< , or 'God bless my grandkids' plus initials, on a wrist, for example.

I wish some women in church were more modest than they are, but I don't think the answer is a draconian legalistic rule about floor length skirts or long pants only, or covering any wrist jewelry or ink, etc.

Blessings.

 

[jasoncran]

yes but again, YOU only mention that is about fish symbols. lets shift this to non offensive. lets say a girl wants to get a butterfly on her abdomen and is attractive? yay or nay. and she lives in my town and tans. if yes then why yes if not then why no?

 

[farouk]

yes but again, YOU only mention that is about fish symbols. lets shift this to non offensive. lets say a girl wants to get a butterfly on her abdomen and is attractive? yay or nay. and she lives in my town and tans. if yes then why yes if not then why no?

[MENTION=11841]jasoncran[/MENTION]:

Oh sorry I thought you were thinking particularly about tattoos being visible in church. (Some are even faith based, of course.)

If it's not decent, then I agree; best avoided.

Blessings.

 

[farouk]

Hi @Deborah13 :
You said just this week:

I think I'm as liberal as I'm ever going to get. Still think nail polish is for girls.

<O:p</O:pWell, I, too, don’t think anyone should get a tattoo unless they really wish to, either.
<O:p</O:p
<O:p
</O:p
In some ways, I guess it’s not so much a matter of being ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’, as it is to acknowledge what @mygraine said in the OP:

The area in which I live >16000 people, has five tattoo shops. Of the five, three are owned by women, of those three, two are owned and operated by Christians. So the thought of Christian women with tattoos is just how it is.

So I guess that those women who do find some designs tasteful and want to use a faith based design in testimony are kind of embracing the medium, because it’s simply contemporary rather than ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’, etc.<O:p</O:p
<O:p
</O:p
(If you see what I mean?)<O:p</O:p

But, yes, your own impression is certainly very valid, too! Blessings.<O:p</O:p

 

[Deborah13]

Hi @Deborah13 :
You said just this week:

I think I'm as liberal as I'm ever going to get. Still think nail polish is for girls.

<O:p</O:pWell, I, too, don’t think anyone should get a tattoo unless they really wish to, either.
<O:p</O:p
<O:p
</O:p
In some ways, I guess it’s not so much a matter of being ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’, as it is to acknowledge what @mygraine said in the OP:

The area in which I live >16000 people, has five tattoo shops. Of the five, three are owned by women, of those three, two are owned and operated by Christians. So the thought of Christian women with tattoos is just how it is.

So I guess that those women who do find some designs tasteful and want to use a faith based design in testimony are kind of embracing the medium, because it’s simply contemporary rather than ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’, etc.<O:p</O:p
<O:p
</O:p
(If you see what I mean?)<O:p</O:p

But, yes, your own impression is certainly very valid, too! Blessings.<O:p</O:p

I probably shouldn't have said "liberal" I didn't mean it in the sense as "LIBERAL". I should have said that I'm as modern as I'm going to get. lol

 

[farouk]

[MENTION=11841]jasoncran[/MENTION]: Anyway, a fish symbol, especially in a modest placement, is pretty benign: <>< , I would have thought.

Blessings.

 

[jasoncran]

farouk, nevermind. I am a weird person. I could just go down and put the kabbalah on my body and then use that to explain the bible and my views and by the kaballah, I mean what the YHWH means.

yet Im sure that wouldn't go well with any believer unless they understood it. I could also put star trek stuff on my body. a few enterprises and couple Klingons and so forth, maybe a battleth. or some stargate stuff. I know women who are in the sci-fi stuff as well.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So are you saying that an inked Christian fish sign <>< (drawn extensively by early Christian travellers) or a Bible ref. on a wrist, say, acquired with the prayerful motive of testimony, becomes to that person a table of demons that precludes fellowship between that person and the Lord?

You quote that passage in First Corinthians 10, but do you really believe that this is the case with a tattoo in the circumstances I just described?

If so, this is a really, really sweeping assumption.

Blessings.

If Paul said that is true in regard to those who innocently consume the meat sacrificed by pagans to idols down at the local <insert name="" of="" favorite="" god="" here=""> temple, how is it not true for innocently tattooing the skin as pagans do in the worship of their gods?

At which point the practice arouses the Lord's jealousy and/or breaks your fellowship with the true God, I can't tell you that. Why are we to think this portion of Paul's writings simply has no application whatsoever? They are there for a reason.

I know this is going to be rationalized away by insisting that tattooing is no longer exclusive to the practice of pagans worshiping the gods of rebellion, sensuality, and pride, but as I say, if anyone thinks that they need to crawl out from under the rock they've been living under. Only a naive, unknowledgeable person would think that's true. Give it another twenty or thirty years, then you might have an argument. But really, in the case of tattoos, I don't believe the practice is coming up into the parts of society where those gods are not openly and defiantly worshiped. Society is being dragged down to the worship of those gods, despite what so many claim is, and will remain, a purely innocent venture into the practice by good people.</insert>

 

[Jethro Bodine]

@jasoncran : Anyway, a fish symbol, especially in a modest placement, is pretty benign: <>< , I would have thought.

Blessings.

You're not getting this because you don't understand it is the practice altogether that is wrong. It's not a matter of the content that somehow makes the practice acceptable to God.

And given the obvious, that tattooing is still very much a widespread pagan practice in the service of pagan 'gods' and the mainstay of people steeped in rebellion and sensuality, how is it that you are convinced the matter of causing someone to stumble is not even remotely a consideration in all of this for you? That's what's been bugging me about how you are rationalizing the practice.

Do you not believe that there is ANY potential person out there crawling out of the underworld of pagan tattooing who then won't be hurt by your acceptance of that which they need desperately to be swept away from? Don't you think there is even one tattooed person alive out there coming out of everything pagan their tattooing represents being harmed by a seemingly innocent and well-meaning woman who says you can get a tattoo, and will give one, in the name of Christ? Not one?

This is especially relevant when you insist the intent of Christian tattooing is be of some kind of service to Christ and the gospel. But Paul is clear that not openly indulging or endorsing something that has the potential to make a brother or sister stumble is how we render proper and acceptable service to the work of Christ and the gospel, not disguise it as being okay.

 

[jasoncran]

So are you saying that an inked Christian fish sign <>< (drawn extensively by early Christian travellers) or a Bible ref. on a wrist, say, acquired with the prayerful motive of testimony, becomes to that person a table of demons that precludes fellowship between that person and the Lord?

You quote that passage in First Corinthians 10, but do you really believe that this is the case with a tattoo in the circumstances I just described?

If so, this is a really, really sweeping assumption.

Blessings.

If Paul said that is true in regard to those who innocently consume the meat sacrificed by pagans to idols down at the local <insert name="" of="" favorite="" god="" here=""> temple, how is it not true for innocently tattooing the skin as pagans do in the worship of their gods?

At which point the practice arouses the Lord's jealousy and/or breaks your fellowship with the true God, I can't tell you that. Why are we to think this portion of Paul's writings simply has no application whatsoever? They are there for a reason.

I know this is going to be rationalized away by insisting that tattooing is no longer exclusive to the practice of pagans worshiping the gods of rebellion, sensuality, and pride, but as I say, if anyone thinks that they need to crawl out from under the rock they've been living under. Only a naive, unknowledgeable person would think that's true. Give it another twenty or thirty years, then you might have an argument. But really, in the case of tattoos, I don't believe the practice is coming up into the parts of society where those gods are not openly and defiantly worshiped. Society is being dragged down to the worship of those gods, despite what so many claim is, and will remain, a purely innocent venture into the practice by good people.</insert>

a modern form of syncretism , like the rcc did with the saints being prayed to?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So are you saying that an inked Christian fish sign <>< (drawn extensively by early Christian travellers) or a Bible ref. on a wrist, say, acquired with the prayerful motive of testimony, becomes to that person a table of demons that precludes fellowship between that person and the Lord?

You quote that passage in First Corinthians 10, but do you really believe that this is the case with a tattoo in the circumstances I just described?

If so, this is a really, really sweeping assumption.

Blessings.

If Paul said that is true in regard to those who innocently consume the meat sacrificed by pagans to idols down at the local <insert name="" of="" favorite="" god="" here=""> temple, how is it not true for innocently tattooing the skin as pagans do in the worship of their gods?

At which point the practice arouses the Lord's jealousy and/or breaks your fellowship with the true God, I can't tell you that. Why are we to think this portion of Paul's writings simply has no application whatsoever? They are there for a reason.

I know this is going to be rationalized away by insisting that tattooing is no longer exclusive to the practice of pagans worshiping the gods of rebellion, sensuality, and pride, but as I say, if anyone thinks that they need to crawl out from under the rock they've been living under. Only a naive, unknowledgeable person would think that's true. Give it another twenty or thirty years, then you might have an argument. But really, in the case of tattoos, I don't believe the practice is coming up into the parts of society where those gods are not openly and defiantly worshiped. Society is being dragged down to the worship of those gods, despite what so many claim is, and will remain, a purely innocent venture into the practice by good people.</insert>

a modern form of syncretism , like the rcc did with the saints being prayed to?

Interesting.

I insist everybody look up the meaning of that word, if you don't already know what it means (like I had too, lol).

 

[jasoncran]

that is scary. I don't see that yet but it could become that. we already have this

if my son gets a 1000000 likes he will go to church

on fb. then I say stay home. you aren't on of His. I don't need "likes" to go to church or to love jesus. that is on a Christian page on fb. go figure and it had likes already. oh the bible illiteracy of the congregation. we often imitate the world. I might saying we should be so prudish and not use worldly things that can be mad to glorify god.ie Christian rap and so forth. but we go to far at times

 

[farouk]

I'll be back later, guys...
[MENTION=93058]Deborah13[/MENTION]: So what you make of the latest posts, above?

Blessings.