Poll re. good tattoo artist career for a Christian woman

[farouk]

We have a lot of OT laws that were about wellness & survival for God's People. Considering that we still have health issues with tatts, even in this time of knowledge & medical advancement, it would be no surprise to me if God's commandment against it were not for the sake of one's morals.

I do not like tattoos. Never got one & will never willingly get one. But just like so many things in this world today, it's become normal & accepted by society. When that happens, we have a generation that doesn't even think of the consequences of getting one (or 20). So, whaddaya do? If worship music hadn't changed, would we be drawing in teens? If the unspoken Sunday dress code hadn't changed, would we be drawing in less? It's true that God never changes, but WE do. And while I believe that God alone can draw tennis shoe-clad people & heavy metal-loving teens, I also believe that God didn't reiterate any laws against tattoos in the NT because He foresaw such a time as this.

That said, I'd rather see a Christian tattoo artist on every corner than the darkness I'm seeing out there now. And I'd much rather see God's Word on someone's arm than the satanic images I have to glance upon. Who knows... a tattoo parlor may be the only place some will ever hear about the Gospel of Christ.

Hi Mizzy,

Thanks for your very considered remarks.

Like you say, it's become normal and accepted by society, and, while this on its own is not necessarily always a sound criterion morally and spiritually, yet as with lots of other changes: improved medicine, travel opportunities, dress codes, computers, etc., there is no point in trying to turn back the clock, I guess; and the onus is still on people who might be critical of other people going under the needle especially for faith based designs, to prove that it will be morally and spiritually harmful. Especially when highly motivated and earnest Christian young people, homeschooling moms, etc. are getting them for positive testimony purposes. The young people and other first timers that are considering going to the parlor, however, do have to go through all the different considerations and aspects of planning it and having it done. and maybe this is where moms, dads, aunts, pastors' wives, etc, can fulfil a discreet and friendly advisory role. Rather than trying bluntly to make it a no-no (which could just drive them in the other direction), they can instead give sensible and even cautionary counsel about first timers knowing their own minds about designs and placements thoroughly beforehand, and also gently encouraging any motive s/he may have to embark on this kind of testimony activity.

We are unlikely to see society going back universally to floor-length Victorian-style dresses; the most conservative and modest of Christian women, if they are not wearing pants anyway, will today often wear skirts for church or work that are on or slightly above the knee. And if modest Christian women, young or otherwise, happen already to wear clothes that show their wrists, arms or ankles, those placements can hardly be regarded as immodest for designs that commend their faith in some design way.

Yes, your last paragraph makes a lot of sense, too, Mizzy.

Inks have in fact improved immensely in recent years. (There's more about it on about dot com, etc, for example.)

My thing is not just, go get a tattoo. No. In itself, the ink has little value. But rather, that, if we are aware that a huge proportion of people do embark on these enhancements, including Christians, then the potential for witness designs can surely be considered by those Christians interested in visiting (or even maybe working at, in some instances) a parlor, not excluding Christian women, since Christian women often tend to be more devoted spiritually than Christian men, in terms of their possible willingness to make their tattoo a faith based one. Bearing in mind in any case that women have not only achieved complete tattoo equality with men but also now constitute 59% (against 41% male) of people in the US that get tattoos.

I hope this all sounds sensible, Mizzy?

Blessings.

 

[farouk]

PS:
[MENTION=96523]Mizzy[/MENTION], sorry, I meant expertvillage, on youtube, (type 'types of tattoo ink' & 'expertvillage') has the info on the much improved inks. Blessings.

 

[Mizzy]

Hi Mizzy,

Thanks for your very considered remarks.

Like you say, it's become normal and accepted by society, and, while this on its own is not necessarily always a sound criterion morally and spiritually, yet as with lots of other changes: improved medicine, travel opportunities, dress codes, computers, etc., there is no point in trying to turn back the clock, I guess; and the onus is still on people who might be critical of other people going under the needle especially for faith based designs, to prove that it will be morally and spiritually harmful. Especially when highly motivated and earnest Christian young people, homeschooling moms, etc. are getting them for positive testimony purposes. The young people and other first timers that are considering going to the parlor, however, do have to go through all the different considerations and aspects of planning it and having it done. and maybe this is where moms, dads, aunts, pastors' wives, etc, can fulfil a discreet and friendly advisory role. Rather than trying bluntly to make it a no-no (which could just drive them in the other direction), they can instead give sensible and even cautionary counsel about first timers knowing their own minds about designs and placements thoroughly beforehand, and also gently encouraging any motive s/he may have to embark on this kind of testimony activity.

We are unlikely to see society going back universally to floor-length Victorian-style dresses; the most conservative and modest of Christian women, if they are not wearing pants anyway, will today often wear skirts for church or work that are on or slightly above the knee. And if modest Christian women, young or otherwise, happen already to wear clothes that show their wrists, arms or ankles, those placements can hardly be regarded as immodest for designs that commend their faith in some design way.

Yes, your last paragraph makes a lot of sense, too, Mizzy.

Inks have in fact improved immensely in recent years. (There's more about it on about dot com, etc, for example.)

My thing is not just, go get a tattoo. No. In itself, the ink has little value. But rather, that, if we are aware that a huge proportion of people do embark on these enhancements, including Christians, then the potential for witness designs can surely be considered by those Christians interested in visiting (or even maybe working at, in some instances) a parlor, not excluding Christian women, since Christian women often tend to be more devoted spiritually than Christian men, in terms of their possible willingness to make their tattoo a faith based one. Bearing in mind in any case that women have not only achieved complete tattoo equality with men but also now constitute 59% (against 41% male) of people in the US that get tattoos.

I hope this all sounds sensible, Mizzy?

Blessings.

Yes, it does sound sensible. But, I also see the old fashioned side of it. I remain very old fashioned about it myself. But I also didn't grow up in that generation with that type of peer pressure. My generation was the pierced ears. I don't even want to talk about how long it took me to convince my mother that, while I agree that God didn't put holes in my ears for a reason, didn't He also want her hair to turn gray for a reason too? :p Yep, that was a fun day.

But seriously, these kids, young adults & even older adults are going to need to know that God loves them regardless of what they've done to their skin. I didn't stop wearing earrings after I got saved, but I did get rid of those earrings that dishonored God. And, while I get what folks are saying about teaching them to not be of this world, I also agree that there isn't a clear moral issue at stake here. I believe God knew what He was doing by being vague about it in the NT. New Christians, who have tatts which dishonor God, would surely be happy to know that they're Christian artists that might be able to turn something evil into good.

 

[farouk]

Yes, it does sound sensible. But, I also see the old fashioned side of it. I remain very old fashioned about it myself. But I also didn't grow up in that generation with that type of peer pressure. My generation was the pierced ears. I don't even want to talk about how long it took me to convince my mother that, while I agree that God didn't put holes in my ears for a reason, didn't He also want her hair to turn gray for a reason too? :p Yep, that was a fun day.

But seriously, these kids, young adults & even older adults are going to need to know that God loves them regardless of what they've done to their skin. I didn't stop wearing earrings after I got saved, but I did get rid of those earrings that dishonored God. And, while I get what folks are saying about teaching them to not be of this world, I also agree that there isn't a clear moral issue at stake here. I believe God knew what He was doing by being vague about it in the NT. New Christians, who have tatts which dishonor God, would surely be happy to know that they're Christian artists that might be able to turn something evil into good.

[MENTION=96523]Mizzy[/MENTION], ty and yes in broad terms I can certainly see what you mean, at various levels.

Your ear piercing analogy is probably particularly apt, actually. And it's not just applicable to very young women, either, because the fact is that these days it wouldn't be unusual for a teen's mom or grandma to have second studs in her lobes, and if the teen does it too, then she's hardly reacting against the generation above. In fact it's quite widespread for moms and grandmas to get the dates of birth or the initials of their kids and grandkids tattooed. So I really don't see it as one generation 'against' another. I think we are already seeing the tattoo parlor visit as a family thing, really, in many cases, at least. And I agree with you that 'there isn't a clear moral issue at stake here'. People can turn it into a bad choice, but it's not inherently so, necessarily, I wouldn't have thought.

The ear piercing analogy that you made is also probably quite apt in the light of the fact that many boys and men get them, too. (It used to be in the West that it was mainly men that got tattoos, and mainly women that got ear piercings.) These days in some places people report that boys are getting ear piercings earlier than girls are, even:

'Boys with pierced ears seem to be the in thing at the moment, though. In the 11 years I've worked with children, it used to be that many of the girls entering the toddler room (15 month to 2 year room) had their ears pierced, none of the boys. Now it's turning the other way. It's not often that I come across little girls with their ears pierced, but in the last few months roughly one in 5 boys under school age have one ear pierced' MummaBear03

http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/archive/index.php/t-265795 dot html'

It's certainly the case that ladies' tattoos have become so very widespread, even if formerly it was more of a male activity.

And like you said, if someone does make a bad choice, is converted by God's grace and moves on in newness of life and wants to put behind any regrettable association with a tattoo previously acquired, then there is always the option of altering it: e.g., the name of a woman's ex-bf can conceivably be changed by a skillful tattooist from 'Bill' to 'Bible', etc., maybe using ornate lettering.

So I think it's good to keep things in perspective and for people not just to 'react' negatively. Because the fact is that a tattoo can be kept within perfectly modest boundaries, a testimony design can be a very effective conversation starter, and it's very evident that getting one is widely established — really, not too unlike getting an extra pair of studs in one's earlobes — as a thoroughly womanly activity.

Isn't it?

(Two cents'.)

Blessings.

<VAR id=yiv6280460659yui-ie-cursor></VAR>

 

[Mizzy]

Yes, it does sound sensible. But, I also see the old fashioned side of it. I remain very old fashioned about it myself. But I also didn't grow up in that generation with that type of peer pressure. My generation was the pierced ears. I don't even want to talk about how long it took me to convince my mother that, while I agree that God didn't put holes in my ears for a reason, didn't He also want her hair to turn gray for a reason too? :p Yep, that was a fun day.

But seriously, these kids, young adults & even older adults are going to need to know that God loves them regardless of what they've done to their skin. I didn't stop wearing earrings after I got saved, but I did get rid of those earrings that dishonored God. And, while I get what folks are saying about teaching them to not be of this world, I also agree that there isn't a clear moral issue at stake here. I believe God knew what He was doing by being vague about it in the NT. New Christians, who have tatts which dishonor God, would surely be happy to know that they're Christian artists that might be able to turn something evil into good.

@Mizzy , ty and yes in broad terms I can certainly see what you mean, at various levels.

Your ear piercing analogy is probably particularly apt, actually. And it's not just applicable to very young women, either, because the fact is that these days it wouldn't be unusual for a teen's mom or grandma to have second studs in her lobes, and if the teen does it too, then she's hardly reacting against the generation above. In fact it's quite widespread for moms and grandmas to get the dates of birth or the initials of their kids and grandkids tattooed. So I really don't see it as one generation 'against' another. I think we are already seeing the tattoo parlor visit as a family thing, really, in many cases, at least. And I agree with you that 'there isn't a clear moral issue at stake here'. People can turn it into a bad choice, but it's not inherently so, necessarily, I wouldn't have thought.

The ear piercing analogy that you made is also probably quite apt in the light of the fact that many boys and men get them, too. (It used to be in the West that it was mainly men that got tattoos, and mainly women that got ear piercings.) These days in some places people report that boys are getting ear piercings earlier than girls are, even:

'Boys with pierced ears seem to be the in thing at the moment, though. In the 11 years I've worked with children, it used to be that many of the girls entering the toddler room (15 month to 2 year room) had their ears pierced, none of the boys. Now it's turning the other way. It's not often that I come across little girls with their ears pierced, but in the last few months roughly one in 5 boys under school age have one ear pierced' MummaBear03

http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/archive/index.php/t-265795 dot html'

It's certainly the case that ladies' tattoos have become so very widespread, even if formerly it was more of a male activity.

And like you said, if someone does make a bad choice, is converted by God's grace and moves on in newness of life and wants to put behind any regrettable association with a tattoo previously acquired, then there is always the option of altering it: e.g., the name of a woman's ex-bf can conceivably be changed by a skillful tattooist from 'Bill' to 'Bible', etc., maybe using ornate lettering.

So I think it's good to keep things in perspective and for people not just to 'react' negatively. Because the fact is that a tattoo can be kept within perfectly modest boundaries, a testimony design can be a very effective conversation starter, and it's very evident that getting one is widely established — really, not too unlike getting an extra pair of studs in one's earlobes — as a thoroughly womanly activity.

Isn't it?

(Two cents'.)

Blessings.

<var id="yiv6280460659yui-ie-cursor"></var>

Yes, I can agree with all of that. The fact that more women are getting tattoos concerns me though. It's a whole other topic, but it seems that more & more, women want to have equality with men on every level. Not to say we're not equal, but God has called us to be different from men in His instructions to us. I believe it has innocent roots, but nonetheless, I can see it plain as day now. So, don't be surprised when some super-buffed gal wants to join the (insert your favorite NFL team here). But, I digress...

Are kids allowed a tattoo before age 18 with parental consent? I think, at least in the US, you have to be 18 regardless of parental consent. That is where my line would be drawn. I don't think a parent should be allowed to make that choice for their child (or condone it), much like earrings for small children. That's a whole new topic of course, but that really, really irks me to see that.

So, farouk... you wouldn't be a tattoo artist, would ya? :D

 

[farouk]

Yes, I can agree with all of that. The fact that more women are getting tattoos concerns me though. It's a whole other topic, but it seems that more & more, women want to have equality with men on every level. Not to say we're not equal, but God has called us to be different from men in His instructions to us. I believe it has innocent roots, but nonetheless, I can see it plain as day now. So, don't be surprised when some super-buffed gal wants to join the (insert your favorite NFL team here). But, I digress...

Are kids allowed a tattoo before age 18 with parental consent? I think, at least in the US, you have to be 18 regardless of parental consent. That is where my line would be drawn. I don't think a parent should be allowed to make that choice for their child (or condone it), much like earrings for small children. That's a whole new topic of course, but that really, really irks me to see that.

So, farouk... you wouldn't be a tattoo artist, would ya? :D

Mizzy:

No, I don't have a parlor; I guess what we are engaging in is cultural commentary, I suppose...

Actually, (whatever some Fundamentalist preachers might care to say) historically there's nothing new about women getting tattoos. In the 19th century it was for a while a known practice among upper class women. This from atlantic.com : 'tattooed society women wore discreet decorative tattoos, which were trendy in the late 19th century, first in London, then in New York'; indeed, Jennie Jerome, of Brooklyn, mother to Sir Winston Churchill, had one, as did some other higher class women of their time. It was afterwards that in the early 20th century tattooing began to be associated more exclusively in the popular mind with male sailors going to parlors in San Diego and Tijuana, etc., from where we may assume that some Fundamentalist preachers got the idea that it was inherently and exclusively a male thing. Now it seems to have come full circle, with many women choosing once more to have it done, like a smaller proportion of women in the 19th did, only now there is not such a sense of social exclusivity in the practice.

Interesting; why does it concern you that women choose to have it done (as opposed to men, that is)? No one, absolutely no one, needs to feel obliged to get a tattoo, men or women. Is it because some folk have given the impression that a woman not having a tattoo is some kind of extra sign of not being a secular feminist, or something like that? because historically at least there isn't much milage in such a viewpoint, I don't think. In fact, with many moms and grandmas getting their children's and grandchildren's dates of birth and initials tattooed, there is almost a 'family values' edge to it, in not a few cases, I would conjecture.

To answer your question, the age for first tattooing does vary from state to state in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_tattooing_in_the_United_States

I guess the earrings for children thing would be a matter for parental discretion; hundreds of millions of Hispanic people are accustomed to the practice that midwives are expected to give the girls their ear piercings; any bureaucratic attempt to forbid it might be regarded as cultural intrusion, I would guess (just as Jews were outraged when - Gentile - San Francisco city officials tried to stop them circumcising boys). Attempts to stop things like this might be regarded as culturally explosive, but maybe this is a digression.

Blessings.

 

[Mizzy]

Mizzy:

No, I don't have a parlor; I guess what we are engaging in is cultural commentary, I suppose...

Actually, (whatever some Fundamentalist preachers might care to say) historically there's nothing new about women getting tattoos. In the 19th century it was for a while a known practice among upper class women. This from atlantic.com : 'tattooed society women wore discreet decorative tattoos, which were trendy in the late 19th century, first in London, then in New York'; indeed, Jennie Jerome, of Brooklyn, mother to Sir Winston Churchill, had one, as did some other higher class women of their time. It was afterwards that in the early 20th century tattooing began to be associated more exclusively in the popular mind with male sailors going to parlors in San Diego and Tijuana, etc., from where we may assume that some Fundamentalist preachers got the idea that it was inherently and exclusively a male thing. Now it seems to have come full circle, with many women choosing once more to have it done, like a smaller proportion of women in the 19th did, only now there is not such a sense of social exclusivity in the practice.

Interesting; why does it concern you that women choose to have it done (as opposed to men, that is)? No one, absolutely no one, needs to feel obliged to get a tattoo, men or women. Is it because some folk have given the impression that a woman not having a tattoo is some kind of extra sign of not being a secular feminist, or something like that? because historically at least there isn't much milage in such a viewpoint, I don't think. In fact, with many moms and grandmas getting their children's and grandchildren's dates of birth and initials tattooed, there is almost a 'family values' edge to it, in not a few cases, I would conjecture.

To answer your question, the age for first tattooing does vary from state to state in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_s..._United_States

I guess the earrings for children thing would be a matter for parental discretion; hundreds of millions of Hispanic people are accustomed to the practice that midwives are expected to give the girls their ear piercings; any bureaucratic attempt to forbid it might be regarded as cultural intrusion, I would guess (just as Jews were outraged when - Gentile - San Francisco city officials tried to stop them circumcising boys). Attempts to stop things like this might be regarded as culturally explosive, but maybe this is a digression.

Blessings.

Well, that's interesting to say the least. I would imagine there were a lot of sermons said on the subject back then. Christians did tend to be more legalistic back then, so I'm presuming it wasn't a customary thing amongst Christian women?

It's not about a tattoo screaming secular feminism to me, but I do equate tattoos with males & I think they make a woman appear less feminine. But, in my defense, I already warned you that I am old fashioned. Well, except for the holes in me ears. :D

I said that about wanting to be equal with men because that appears to be the trend. Women want the right to fight in wars, the right to extreme manual labor, etc.. While women did receive tattoos in the 19th century, we then had a time there when it was all but taboo & more of a "man thang.'" At least that's my observation.

As I was reading your last paragraph, circumcision came to mind, yes. So, yeah, I get that it's custom for some. However, I would quickly venture that it's not a custom for the majority of children I see with pierced ears.

Nonetheless, I don't hold to a belief that tattoos are strictly for heathens, be it male or female. Nor do I believe that people who pierce their baby's ears are horrible parents. But, it's definitely not my cup o' tea & yeah, the latter is very bothersome to me.

 

[farouk]

Well, that's interesting to say the least. I would imagine there were a lot of sermons said on the subject back then. Christians did tend to be more legalistic back then, so I'm presuming it wasn't a customary thing amongst Christian women?

It's not about a tattoo screaming secular feminism to me, but I do equate tattoos with males & I think they make a woman appear less feminine. But, in my defense, I already warned you that I am old fashioned. Well, except for the holes in me ears. :D

I said that about wanting to be equal with men because that appears to be the trend. Women want the right to fight in wars, the right to extreme manual labor, etc.. While women did receive tattoos in the 19th century, we then had a time there when it was all but taboo & more of a "man thang.'" At least that's my observation.

As I was reading your last paragraph, circumcision came to mind, yes. So, yeah, I get that it's custom for some. However, I would quickly venture that it's not a custom for the majority of children I see with pierced ears.

Nonetheless, I don't hold to a belief that tattoos are strictly for heathens, be it male or female. Nor do I believe that people who pierce their baby's ears are horrible parents. But, it's definitely not my cup o' tea & yeah, the latter is very bothersome to me.

mizzy:

I guess we are thinking around the subject really with various interesting reflections, aren't we.

I think that in terms of ideals of womanhood, if I can use that phrase, Proverbs 31 contains legitimately applicable Biblical ideals, really. Even here, of course, it is sometimes read selectively. The part which speaks of the woman's husband and children blessing her, and her skill in making clothing is often rightly quoted and stressed. It also says:

13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.

14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.
15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.
16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.
17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.

Hmm...interesting: whatever happened to the Victorian image of the pale, fainting waif caricature that seemed to inspire a certain type of dominant macho man in those days (and maybe a few preachers, too)? Because here is a Biblically commended woman who is physically strong and has developed her muscles somewhat. She is not trying to be a man, but she is commended for useful and practical outdoor pursuits involving bodily energy. In some ways, the Proverbs 31 woman reminds me of the pioneer Puritan woman, with her resourcefulness and energy, that was so important in the history of North America. Anyway, I'm just thinking aloud, I suppose, about how the Victorian caricature (which I don't remotely suggest you hold to!) may have gone too far the other way.

In terms of tattoos, my two cents' would be: so what, if a woman freely chooses to have, say, modest faith- or family- oriented designs on a calf or arm? if those arms and calves are sturdy from practical, oudoor use, this would be quite Biblical anyway; it doesn't have to signify some rejection of men, or whatever.

Re. you being 'old fashioned', often it's a question of what one is used to, really, and what one's definitions are. You certainly don't seem rigidly old fashioned! You've indicated that you feel it's quite appropriate to continue to enjoy using your ear piercings: it ought not to be remotely controversial for a Godly woman to exercise freedom in the gently enhancing piercing and studding - whether singly or doubly or whatever - of one's earlobes. I guess, too, that those Christian moms and grandmas who also have their kids' or grandkids' initials or a Bible reference inked on their wrists - maybe in flowery, ornate lettering - would think that they, too, are gently exercising reasonable Christian freedom.

(Further two cents'...)

Blessings

 

[Mizzy]

mizzy:

I guess we are thinking around the subject really with various interesting reflections, aren't we.

I think that in terms of ideals of womanhood, if I can use that phrase, Proverbs 31 contains legitimate Biblical ideals, really. Even here, of course, it is sometimes read selectively. The part which speaks of the woman's husband and children blessing her, and her skill in making clothing is often rightly quoted and stressed. It also says:

13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.

14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.
15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.
16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.
17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.

Hmm...interesting: whatever happened to the Victorian image of the pale, fainting waif caricature that seemed to inspire a certain type of dominant macho man in those days (and maybe a few preachers, too)? Because here is a Biblically commended woman who is physically strong and has developed her muscles somewhat. She is not trying to be a man, but she is commended for useful and practical outdoor pursuits involving bodily energy. In some ways, the Proverbs 31 woman reminds me of the pioneer Puritan woman, with her resourcefulness and energy, that was so important in the history of North America. Anyway, I'm just thinking aloud, I suppose, about how the Victorian caricature (which I don't remotely suggest you hold to!) may have gone too far the other way.

In terms of tattoos, my two cents' would be: so what, if a woman freely chooses to have, say, modest faith- or family- oriented designs on a calf or arm? if those arms and calves are sturdy from practical, oudoor use, this would be quite Biblical anyway; it doesn't have to signify some rejection of men, or whatever.

Re. you being 'old fashioned', often it's a question of what one is used to, really, and what one's definitions are. You certainly don't seem rigidly old fashioned! You've indicated that you feel it's quite appropriate to continue to enjoy using your ear piercings: it ought not to be remotely controversial for a Godly woman to exercise freedom in the gently enhancing piercing and studding - whether singly or doubly or whatever - of one's earlobes. I guess, too, that those Christian moms and grandmas who also have their kids' or grandkids' initials or a Bible reference inked on their wrists - maybe in flowery, ornate lettering - would think that they, too, are gently exercising reasonable Christian freedom.

(Further two cents'...)

Blessings

My idea of feminism isn't about wearing dresses & pearls all day. I promise. LOL!

You're absolutely right though. A Proverbs woman is, indeed, physically & mentally strong. I get that it's kinda stereotypical of me, but I would be honored to have a Christian friend who filled potholes all day, had 14 tatts & spit out her chewing tobacco. I have no desire to judge someone's decisions, but it's just a hang up. It's not about what others decide for themselves, but just my preferences. And I totally agree with it being a great talking point & testimony. I just ... Women & tattoos are just not in the same category in me wee head. I'm sure my parents had a lot to do with it & my generation too. I'm willing to bend on tatts being a part of life now & Christians giving them, but changing the way I see them is a whole other can o' worms. LOL!

And while we're on male/female hang ups, I prefer male preachers too (did you just shake your head at me?).

 

[George Muller]

I think i like Mizzy and I agree with much of your thoughts.

 

[farouk]

My idea of feminism isn't about wearing dresses & pearls all day. I promise. LOL!

You're absolutely right though. A Proverbs woman is, indeed, physically & mentally strong. I get that it's kinda stereotypical of me, but I would be honored to have a Christian friend who filled potholes all day, had 14 tatts & spit out her chewing tobacco. I have no desire to judge someone's decisions, but it's just a hang up. It's not about what others decide for themselves, but just my preferences. And I totally agree with it being a great talking point & testimony. I just ... Women & tattoos are just not in the same category in me wee head. I'm sure my parents had a lot to do with it & my generation too. I'm willing to bend on tatts being a part of life now & Christians giving them, but changing the way I see them is a whole other can o' worms. LOL!

And while we're on male/female hang ups, I prefer male preachers too (did you just shake your head at me?).

Hi there, @Mizzy . Okay so I've read through your post — another very thought provoking one — and I've highlighted what seems to be what you rationally admit readily.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but maybe I'm just seeing a little of a creative contrast — tension, even — between what you rationally admit very readily and, on the other hand, the aesthetic sense that you prefer at some less rational level to retain, which is absolutely fine. On the one hand you completely recognize that a faith based tattoo is an effective and wholesome conversation starter in Christian testimony, and that giving - and receiving - them is a benign part of life for not a few Christians. On the other, I think we all need to admit that if the aesthetics of tattoo design repel you, be they faith based or not, there is a sense in which no one can expect to over-rationalize personal preferences which for a variety of reasons - conscious and unconscious - may be there. The well worn adage does apply: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some of us have to admit that some people do indeed think all tattoos are ugly, or at least, look inappropriate on people, and that is how it is.

(This, however deep-seated historically it may be for prominent women to have been on record as having had it done: 19th century suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, in some ways regarded as an historic role model, reportedly was tattooed; Jennie Jerome Churchill complemented the bracelet area of her wrist with a tattoo.)

I hope I've kind of empathized fairly accurately what you are saying?

Blessings.

 

[Mizzy]

Hi there, @Mizzy . Okay so I've read through your post — another very thought provoking one — and I've highlighted what seems to be what you rationally admit readily.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but maybe I'm just seeing a little of a creative contrast — tension, even — between what you rationally admit very readily and, on the other hand, the aesthetic sense that you prefer at some less rational level to retain, which is absolutely fine. On the one hand you completely recognize that a faith based tattoo is an effective and wholesome conversation starter in Christian testimony, and that giving - and receiving - them is a benign part of life for not a few Christians. On the other, I think we all need to admit that if the aesthetics of tattoo design repel you, be they faith based or not, there is a sense in which no one can expect to over-rationalize personal preferences which for a variety of reasons - conscious and unconscious - may be there. The well worn adage does apply: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some of us have to admit that some people do indeed think all tattoos are ugly, or at least, look inappropriate on people, and that is how it is.

(This, however deep-seated historically it may be for prominent women to have been on record as having had it done: 19th century suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, in some ways regarded as an historic role model, reportedly was tattooed; Jennie Jerome Churchill complemented the bracelet area of her wrist with a tattoo.)

I hope I've kind of empathized fairly accurately what you are saying?

Blessings.

You got it! However, it wouldn't prevent me from looking beyond them & seeing what God sees. It wouldn't prevent a friendship (female or male), a family relationship, a courtship or even a marriage (an obsession with them might, but not the ink itself).

I am inclined to admit that, you, [MENTION=41474]farouk[/MENTION], will be sharpening me.

 

[Mizzy]

I think i like Mizzy and I agree with much of your thoughts.

Thank you & I totally agree with you on motive. God knows our heart.

 

[farouk]

You got it! However, it wouldn't prevent me from looking beyond them & seeing what God sees. It wouldn't prevent a friendship (female or male), a family relationship, a courtship or even a marriage (an obsession with them might, but not the ink itself).

I am inclined to admit that, you, [MENTION=41474]farouk[/MENTION], will be sharpening me.

Mizzy: Do I see a pun on the word 'sharpening' as in tattoo needle (at least metaphorically) as well as the idea of stimulating God-honoring meditation?

I'm inclined to agree, anyway, that friendships and relationships tend to transcend hobbies and interests, as well as being the focal point for them. What I like about these forums is that Christians from a variety of walks of life and backgrounds — as well as probably very similar ones — can come together and encourage and mutually challenge each other around a whole range of topics. I myself do quite a lot of my work on the screen and it's a work of a moment to check back sometimes and see how interesting discussions are going here.

Blessings.

 

[Mizzy]

Mizzy: Do I see a pun on the word 'sharpening' as in tattoo needle (at least metaphorically) as well as the idea of stimulating God-honoring meditation?

I'm inclined to agree, anyway, that friendships and relationships tend to transcend hobbies and interests, as well as being the focal point for them. What I like about these forums is that Christians from a variety of walks of life and backgrounds — as well as probably very similar ones — can come together and encourage and mutually challenge each other around a whole range of topics. I myself do quite a lot of my work on the screen and it's a work of a moment to check back sometimes and see how interesting discussions are going here.

Blessings.

If you see a pun it that, it's cause you were reaching for it! :toofunny

I am quite sure I'll enjoy this board & I have no doubt that God led me straight to it. There's some very wise people here & there seems to be love amongst all, whether folks agree on everything or not.

 

[farouk]

If you see a pun it that, it's cause you were reaching for it! :toofunny

I am quite sure I'll enjoy this board & I have no doubt that God led me straight to it. There's some very wise people here & there seems to be love
amongst all, whether folks agree on everything or not.

Mizzy:

Okay! just wondered, anyway, since for example you had previously somewhat sparklingly woven in references to your mom and pierced ears.

Here is some food for thought: the reference to 'cutting for the dead', etc. in Leviticus 19.28 has often been cited, especially by some Fundamentalist preachers, as a sign of blanket disapproval by Moses, as led by the Spirit, of anything resembling what we would call a tattoo today. But it's interesting also that 19th century Biblical scholar M W Thomson suggested that Moses in Exodus 13.9 and Exodus 13.16 may have instituted a specifically Jewish form of tattoo-like commemoration as a permanent form of thanksgiving for deliverance from Egypt. If this is the case, then by implication the apparent prohibition in Leviticus 19.28 would refer only to specifically pagan marking and cutting; and he suggests that the already regionally widespread tattooing practice may have been adapted by Moses after the children of Israel came out of Egypt.

(Obviously some Fundamentalist preachers possibly with a vested interest in preserving their particular vision of culture might disagree.)

I'm not necessarily convinced one way or another; and in any case the New Testament believer is under grace and with a right to exercising Romans 14 liberty in any case.

Thoughts, @Mizzy ? and others?

Blessings.

 

[Mizzy]

Mizzy:

Okay! just wondered, anyway, since for example you had previously somewhat sparklingly woven in references to your mom and pierced ears.

Here is some food for thought: the reference to 'cutting for the dead', etc. in Leviticus 19.28 has often been cited, especially by some Fundamentalist preachers, as a sign of blanket disapproval by Moses, as led by the Spirit, of anything resembling what we would call a tattoo today. But it's interesting also that 19th century Biblical scholar M W Thomson suggested that Moses in Exodus 13.9 and Exodus 13.16 may have instituted a specifically Jewish form of tattoo-like commemoration as a permanent form of thanksgiving for deliverance from Egypt. If this is the case, then by implication the apparent prohibition in Leviticus 19.28 would refer only to specifically pagan marking and cutting; and he suggests that the already regionally widespread tattooing practice may have been adapted by Moses after the children of Israel came out of Egypt.

(Obviously some Fundamentalist preachers possibly with a vested interest in preserving their particular vision of culture might disagree.)

I'm not necessarily convinced one way or another; and in any case the New Testament believer is under grace and with a right to exercising Romans 14 liberty in any case.

Thoughts, @Mizzy ? and others?

Blessings

That's very interesting, farouk. I've never heard that argument before.

When one considers the history of tattoos & the reputation they have had, it's easy to see that they've always been taboo in the age of grace. At least until these past few years. Were they prohibitive because the law was misinterpreted though? I tend to not think so. Or else, many Jews would've continued on with other various tattoos, like pretty little ornate flowers on their wrists. LOL (couldn't resist)!

After giving it more thought, I think it's like with many things of the law. Even though it wasn't reiterated in the NT, Christians held to the belief that, while it was lawful, it was not profitable. I'm sure some were more legalistic, sure, but for the most part it would seem that tattoos were looked upon as a rebellion against God in the OT & therefore, they became something "of this world" & often considered "dark," in the minds of Christians. But as we move more & more toward the end times, it would pay us to remember that we're, indeed, under grace & we need to remember that what might not be profitable for one, may actually be VERY profitable for another during these last days.

And maybe that's why God has left my personal preferences unchallenged in my heart. Simply because a tattoo would not be profitable for what He has in store for me.

 

[farouk]

That's very interesting, farouk. I've never heard that argument before.

When one considers the history of tattoos & the reputation they have had, it's easy to see that they've always been taboo in the age of grace. At least until these past few years. Were they prohibitive because the law was misinterpreted though? I tend to not think so. Or else, many Jews would've continued on with other various tattoos, like pretty little ornate flowers on their wrists. LOL (couldn't resist)!

After giving it more thought, I think it's like with many things of the law. Even though it wasn't reiterated in the NT, Christians held to the belief that, while it was lawful, it was not profitable. I'm sure some were more legalistic, sure, but for the most part it would seem that tattoos were looked upon as a rebellion against God in the OT & therefore, they became something "of this world" & often considered "dark," in the minds of Christians. But as we move more & more toward the end times, it would pay us to remember that we're, indeed, under grace & we need to remember that what might not be profitable for one, may actually be VERY profitable for another during these last days.

And maybe that's why God has left my personal preferences unchallenged in my heart. Simply because a tattoo would not be profitable for what He has in store for me.

Mizzy,

Well, your comments are quite absorbing and even generous, thank-you.

I'm sure there is quite substantial truth and relevance to your observations. I see that you use the 'phrase: 'pretty little ornate flowers on their wrists'; does this mean, maybe, that you don't necessarily think all tattoos look ugly or unbecoming? (This is the ostensible impression of your sense of taste that I had up to now.)

Of course you alone can know what your personal preferences are; I see (if I may make the observation) that, as you rightly focus on the last days situation of believers in the Lord Jesus, you are thinking in 'vertical' terms (not a bad perspective to have at all). Some believers considering the matter of tattoos exercised in evangelism would also combine a vertical with a horizontal perspective: how can telling others of 'what is in store' be helped by an effective faith based design that will doubtless provoke many conversations in these last days? (I'm sure you are very active in telling others, though, and probably far more so than I am.) So you see where many Christians who consider faith related tattoos are coming from?

And I think it's heartening that you see that being under grace is very relevant in relation to the matter and that testimony tattoos 'may actually be VERY profitable for another during these last days.'

(My further two cents'. It's an absorbing topic that can be approached from various angles, isn't it?)

Blessings.

 

[Mizzy]

Mizzy,

Well, your comments are quite absorbing and even generous, thank-you.

I'm sure there is quite substantial truth and relevance to your observations. I see that you use the 'phrase: 'pretty little ornate flowers on their wrists'; does this mean, maybe, that you don't necessarily think all tattoos look ugly or unbecoming? (This is the ostensible impression of your sense of taste that I had up to now.)

Of course you alone can know what your personal preferences are; I see (if I may make the observation) that, as you rightly focus on the last days situation of believers in the Lord Jesus, you are thinking in 'vertical' terms (not a bad perspective to have at all). Some believers considering the matter of tattoos exercised in evangelism would also combine a vertical with a horizontal perspective: how can telling others of 'what is in store' be helped by an effective faith based design that will doubtless provoke many conversations in these last days? (I'm sure you are very active in telling others, though, and probably far more so than I am.) So you see where many Christians who consider faith related tattoos are coming from?

And I think it's heartening that you see that being under grace is very relevant in relation to the matter and that testimony tattoos 'may actually be VERY profitable for another during these last days.'

(My further two cents'. It's an absorbing topic that can be approached from various angles, isn't it?)

Blessings

Actually, I do see some tattoos as very pretty & very cool, but it doesn't change my personal preferences or perceptions of tattoos in general.

And yes, as I admitted before, I'm totally onboard with folks getting inked to share their testimonies and to witness to people. But that's about as horizontal as I can get at this point & time. My personal testimony will definitely be finding another "horizon."

 

[farouk]

Actually, I do see some tattoos as very pretty & very cool, but it doesn't change my personal preferences or perceptions of tattoos in general.

And yes, as I admitted before, I'm totally onboard with folks getting inked to share their testimonies and to witness to people. But that's about as horizontal as I can get at this point & time. My personal testimony will definitely be finding another "horizon."

Hi Mizzy,

Just a few more thoughts; I must say I do appreciate that you must have brought to bear some considerable patient thinking in order to have commented as you have done. And I think, too, you have shown careful forbearance in continuing to post thoughtfully to an extent beyond the level of someone with only a superficial, cursory interest in the subject. There exists of course a vast variety of tattoo designs, incuding faith based ones; some indeed may be aesthetically unsuccessful.

If I could supply a link, however, even the most conservative skeptic about the appropriateness of faith based tattoos might well be moved by the sheer unobtrusiveness and gracious modesty of Bible verse tattoos such as this one, depicted; a quiet, low key design in a placement highly becoming for the choice of Bible verse (Ps. 119.105)<VAR id=yiv2707988434yui-ie-cursor></VAR>.

http://letterssyllableswordsphrasessentences.blogspot.ca/2011/01/nuts-bolts.html

I know you did say honestly:

The fact that more women are getting tattoos concerns me ..

If you still have concerns about this depicted kind of example of a Bible verse tattoo, it is also honest of you. Although also I myself would have to say in all honesty that I wouldn't personally be able to identify any particular concerns about this example of faith based tattoo.

You also said, and your insights must be perfectly valuable for you:

I think they make a woman appear less feminine.

Did you really mean in all cases? or just sometimes? because again, for example, I would find it just a bit hard to consider that the tattoo depicted is damaging to the wearer's femininity.

(Just a few more thoughts, then, and, again, I appreciate your candor and patient willingness to broaden the discussion of the subject from the bounds within which for years you may <VAR id=yiv2707988434yui-ie-cursor></VAR>have been more familiar.)<VAR id=yiv2707988434yui-ie-cursor></VAR>