Poll: Respecting her tattoo wish

[farouk]

My fav was the woman with chicken wings for her back. so funny!

PS: The back, as a placement, does lend itself as a useful canvas, anyway. With evening gowns, too, etc. (Re. faith based designs, I'm don't know which placements would be considered the most effective.)

 

[Sparkey]

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.

faouk, before we can discuss what I am saying, or in this case, what you are hearing, you will need to provide the actual quote from where you get the idea that I've said anything close to "it is uniquely tattoos that take on the aura of something that needs to be completely avoided." The fact is that my words that you seem to have heard exist only in your mind.

You go on to say that I speak of 'pushing Christians back into the world' but, and here again, I've not said this. Paul spoke of one of the duties that all Christians have. I've quoted him and have attempted to give you a straightforward and unavoidable application of the very principle he spoke of showing how we (all Christians) are to apply it (the principle of considering the conscience of the weaker brother) into our lives, our hearts and our actions.

You will recall that I have also recently asked you to spare me the trouble of requesting other Moderators assistance here. I renew this request and ask again that you stop yourself and do no longer try to misrepresent me. If you'd like to quote me, you may, but because of the many times that you've failed to represent my view fairly I would direct you to either stop trying to say what I mean, or failing that, to do so with care and be sure to include the context so that we don't have to speak about this again

~SparrowHawke

 

[farouk]

faouk, before we can discuss what I am saying, or in this case, what you are hearing, you will need to provide the actual quote from where you get the idea that I've said anything close to "it is uniquely tattoos that take on the aura of something that needs to be completely avoided." The fact is that my words that you seem to have heard exist only in your mind.

You go on to say that I speak of 'pushing Christians back into the world' but, and here again, I've not said this. Paul spoke of one of the duties that all Christians have. I've quoted him and have attempted to give you a straightforward and unavoidable application of the very principle he spoke of showing how we (all Christians) are to apply it (the principle of considering the conscience of the weaker brother) into our lives, our hearts and our actions.

You will recall that I have also recently asked you to spare me the trouble of requesting other Moderators assistance here. I renew this request and ask again that you stop yourself and do no longer try to misrepresent me. If you'd like to quote me, you may, but because of the many times that you've failed to represent my view fairly I would direct you to either stop trying to say what I mean, or failing that, to do so with care and be sure to include the context so that we don't have to speak about this again

~SparrowHawke

Oh okay sorry Sparrowhawke, when I looked again just now I see it was Jethro who referred to the notion of pushing people back into the world; sorry, I'll try to be more careful.

I think you are asking for direct comment about stumbling blocks.

It's supper time now, but I will come back and try to comment on what you exactly said.

Blessings.

 

[farouk]

Sparrowhawke:

I think you wanted me to comment specifically on the idea of tattoos as a stumbling block or offence to the conscience of the weaker brother. (Or sister, of course.)

This interesting quote is from the Wikipedia article on Stumbling Blocks:

In order to qualify as scandalous, the behavior must, in itself, be evil or give the appearance of evil. To do a good act or an indifferent act, even knowing that it will inspire others to sin — as when a student studies diligently to do well, knowing it will cause envy — is not scandalous. Again, to ask someone to commit perjury is scandalous, but for a judge to require witnesses to give an oath even when he knows the witness is likely to commit perjury is not scandalous. It does not require that the other person actually commit sin; to be scandalous, it suffices that the act is of a nature to lead someone to sin. Scandal is performed with the intention of inducing someone to sin. Urging someone to commit a sin is therefore active scandal. In the case where the person urging the sin is aware of its nature and the person he is urging is ignorant, the sins committed are the fault of the person who urged them. Scandal is also performed when someone performs an evil act, or an act that appears to be evil, knowing that it will lead others into sin. (In case of an apparently evil act, a sufficient reason for the act despite the faults it will cause negates the scandal.) Scandal may also be incurred when an innocent act may be an occasion of sin to the weak, but such acts should not be foregone if the goods at stake are of importance.

Here there seem to be some very interesting definitions between what a stumbling block is and is not.

To apply this to the idea of tattoos as a stumbling block to the weaker brother and sister, I guess I would say that some tattoos can be a stumbling block, particularly those in certain ungodly designs or unsuitable uncovered placements.

Whether they would always be stumbling blocks per se because of the weaker brother and sister's conscience, is much harder to say, I would suggest.

The last sentence above is quite telling: 'such acts should not be foregone if the goods at stake are of importance'. It also says earlier, 'a sufficient reason for the act ... negates the scandal'.

But the bottom line is, don't do anything that definitely might lead the other person to sin. Some tattoos might indeed do so, and should be refrained from. Whether all tattoos, even faith based ones, come into this category, is another matter.

(Also, I don't think I have ever said on these forums that people actually ought to go get tattoos.)

I hope that you will feel that I have tried to comment directly and relevantly to your comment about injuring the weaker believer. Thanks for the opportunity to do so.

Blessings.

 

[farouk]

I'm afraid you have missed the point. The point is not that if you do it wrong, The Lord will strike you dead; the point is that you are doing it wrong. David used the wrong method of moving the Ark and the consequence was the death of a man, even though his heart was right.
The best way to do God's work is to do it His way, whatever way He may tell you to use.

God bless you

Hi Nathanael. I've added a few more posts, above, which may explain a bit more.

Blessings.

 

[Nathanael Chong]

I believe that the more important thing is not the message we want to give through tattoos, but the message others receive as a result of tattoos.

I define a stumbling block as: something that causes others to doubt the standards of the Christian faith. For example, i believe Christians are known for refusing/opposing the intake of drugs. Now if an unbeliever happens to see a Christian take a drug, he might think, "I thought Christians aren't supposed to take drugs. If this one can do it, what's wrong with me doing it?"

See, it's not so much about the sincerity of your heart as it is about the message people receive from out actions.

God bless

 

[turnorburn]

Back in post #4 Down Yokel had it right tattoos are pagan in origin another form of rebellion, kind of an in your face statement. If a person thinks God isn't offended your mistaken why else would he have thought it important enough to put in the bible. We don't win the world by being worldly, we are not of this world anymore guys. When was the last time an unbeliever rang your doorbell and asked you how to become a Christian, your tattoo won me over..:erm

Where is/was a no choice..

tob

 

[farouk]

I believe that the more important thing is not the message we want to give through tattoos, but the message others receive as a result of tattoos.

I define a stumbling block as: something that causes others to doubt the standards of the Christian faith. For example, i believe Christians are known for refusing/opposing the intake of drugs. Now if an unbeliever happens to see a Christian take a drug, he might think, "I thought Christians aren't supposed to take drugs. If this one can do it, what's wrong with me doing it?"

See, it's not so much about the sincerity of your heart as it is about the message people receive from out actions.

God bless

Thanks for your comment. I do wonder whether the comparison is apt, though: for example, a Christian fish sign <>< on a wrist, obtained for witness purposes on the one hand and illegal drug taking on the other? Apples and oranges? Blessings.

 

[Nathanael Chong]

Thanks for your comment. I do wonder whether the comparison is apt, though: for example, a Christian fish sign <>< on a wrist, obtained for witness purposes on the one hand and illegal drug taking on the other? Apples and oranges? Blessings.

I was just using the drug taking as an example of a stumbling block. As for the fish sign, I respect the intention, but I do not think that other people will care enough to approach you and ask about your faith.

 

[Sparkey]

"But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak."
[1 Cor 8:9]

Sparrowhawke:
... the bottom line is, don't do anything that definitely might lead the other person to sin. Some tattoos might indeed do so, and should be refrained from. Whether all tattoos, even faith based ones, come into this category, is another matter.

Compare the phrase, "Take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak," with your change to the comment to make it, "Don't do anything that definitely might lead the other person to sin."

Paul's reasoning is simple and agrees with what you've quoted about stumbling blocks and our need to avoid placing them in front of those that God loves. Here's part of the WIKI comment you quoted, "It does not require that the other person actually commit sin; to be scandalous, it suffices that the act is of a nature to lead someone to sin."

Here's what Paul explained as the reason for the command: "For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?…"

So if the Holy Spirit, while instructing us to take care, explains the principle with such care, can we then, in good conscience, ignore the concern?

If God tells me to take care and to avoid putting blocks of stumbling, if we know that everything that can be shaken will be shaken, shall I ignore what he says and advocate instead that it is okay to place blocks of stumbling in front of others? Shall I allow my liberty to somehow become a source of harm? You tell me.

~Sparrow

 

[farouk]

"But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak."
[1 Cor 8:9]



Compare the phrase, "Take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak," with your change to the comment to make it, "Don't do anything that definitely might lead the other person to sin."

Paul's reasoning is simple and agrees with what you've quoted about stumbling blocks and our need to avoid placing them in front of those that God loves. Here's part of the WIKI comment you quoted, "It does not require that the other person actually commit sin; to be scandalous, it suffices that the act is of a nature to lead someone to sin."

Here's what Paul explained as the reason for the command: "For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?…"

So if the Holy Spirit, while instructing us to take care, explains the principle with such care, can we then, in good conscience, ignore the concern?

If God tells me to take care and to avoid putting blocks of stumbling, if we know that everything that can be shaken will be shaken, shall I ignore what he says and advocate instead that it is okay to place blocks of stumbling in front of others? Shall I allow my liberty to somehow become a source of harm? You tell me.

~Sparrow

Some tattoos might be definitely injurious. Others might be finely balanced. Others - applying some of the wiki quote - might be of sufficient importance in someone's testimony activities to outweigh other aspects, maybe.

Blessings.

 

[Sparkey]

It seems that your priority is given to WIKI over your brothers considered and prayerful offerings. Pardon me but I will now give up on the idea of convincing you otherwise and simply ask that truth become yours when the time is right.

 

[farouk]

It seems that your priority is given to WIKI over your brothers considered and prayerful offerings. Pardon me but I will now give up on the idea of convincing you otherwise and simply ask that truth become yours when the time is right.

I appreciate your thoughts and considerations. I guess also that where Romans 14 speaks of every many being fully persuaded in his own mind about matters not of central doctrinal import, is also of some relevance.

Blessings.

 

[turnorburn]

TATTOO. . . YE WORSHIP YE KNOW WHAT

"Ye worship ye know not what. . ."
Jesus Christ, John 4:24


Throughout history the tattoo bears the mark of paganism, demonism, Baal worship, shamanism, mysticism, heathenism, cannibalism and just about every other pagan belief known. The tattoo has NEVER been associated with Bible Believing Christians. And whenever and wherever, in history Christianity appears – tattoos disappear. The only exception -- 20th century, lukewarm, carnal, disobedient, Laodicean Christians.

The birth of the tattoo has always born the fruits of pagan religion and mysticism. Without exception, research after research, study after study, book after book, the roots of the tattoo never wavers. The following documentation is just a small (very small) drop of the ocean of research documenting the pagan and demonic source of the tattoo.

Please remember. . . The following documentation is from pro-tattoo books simply documenting the obvious spiritual and religious link to the tattoo. These are not Christian writers trying to paint a negative portrait of the tattoo. No matter how much the carnal, rebellious, Christian desires to justify their perverse reasoning for "marking" themselves with the forbidden demonic tattoo, the facts are loud and clear, backed by tons of research and documentation by the leading pro-tattoo authorities on the planet – the foundation, origin, meaning and purposes of the tattoo is pagan demonism, shamanism, Baal worship, and occult mysticism.

A tattooist in many cultures is also a shaman, magick-man, priest or priestess. According to the dictionary a shaman is a "intermediary between the natural and supernatural worlds, using magic to cure illness, foretell the future, control spiritual forces, etc." (www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0648969.html)

"Tattooing is often a magical rite in the more traditional cultures, and the tattooist is respected as a priest or shaman."
(Michelle Delio, Tattoo: The Exotic Art of Skin Decoration, p. 73)


"In Fiji, Fromosa, New Zealand and in certain of the North American Indian tribes, tattooing was regard as a religious ceremony, and performed by priests or priestesses." (Ronald Scutt, Art, Sex and Symbol, 1974, p. 64)

"The actual tattooing process, which involved complex ritual and taboos, could only be done by priests and was associated with beliefs which were secrets known only to members of the priestly caste. . . Hambly concluded that historically tattooing had originated in connection with ancient rites of scarification and bloodletting which were associated with religious practices intended to put the human soul in harmony with supernatural forces and ensure continuity between this life and the next."
(Gilbert, Steve, Tattoo History: A Source Book, p. 158)

The tattooist, shaman or the occult priest many times uses the tattoo as a point of contact, or inlets into the spiritual world. The tattoo is much more than just a body decoration. It’s more than just a layer of ink cut into the skin. In fact, the tattoo in every culture, in every country, up until the 20th century, was a vehicle for pagan spiritual and religious invocations. Even today, in many countries (including the United States), the tattoo is believed to be a bridge into the supernatural world.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/watkins_tattoos/pagan.html

maybe this will help..

tob
​

 

[jasoncran]

I beg to disagree with this.

The tattooist, shaman or the occult priest many times uses the tattoo as a point of contact, or inlets into the spiritual world. The tattoo is much more than just a body decoration. It’s more than just a layer of ink cut into the skin. In fact, the tattoo in every culture, in every country, up until the 20th century, was a vehicle for pagan spiritual and religious invocations. Even today, in many countries (including the United States), the tattoo is believed to be a bridge into the supernatural world.

while its possible for some who are into the occult but I have yet to see incense lit in the tat shops I see monthly. or any other occultic thing. to assume that all art even on the body is always bad and from the occult is a logical fallacy. I have seen murals of nature on a persons back and that was simply them being into that scene. the tats parlors if they were into that old stuff wouldn't be American but from the maori or other such like tribes. how many in America were that way? the American Indians to my knowledge didn't tat. they did paint their faces but that isn't tattoing.

 

[Sparkey]

Quote snip: "the tattoo in every culture, in every country, up until the 20th century..."

Terry Watkins appears to be the author of the above quoted article. This comes from the "Dial-the-Truth" ministry. Jason? Do you disagree with their statement about historical tattoos and cultural meanings?

I ask because you spoke of the tattoo shops that you've seen and I know you were not alive prior to the 20th century. Heck, neither was my dad.

 

[farouk]

jasoncran:

You mentioned tattoos on the heavy metal thread, but I just thought I would ask you here rather than there. questdriven also mentioned a while back that many of her favorite Christian rock artists happen to be tattooed.

Do you think that the fact that a Christian musician has tattoos renders their music unlistenable or whatever? or less listenable, etc.

Blessings.

 

[jasoncran]

jasoncran:

You mentioned tattoos on the heavy metal thread, but I just thought I would ask you here rather than there. questdriven also mentioned a while back that many of her favorite Christian rock artists happen to be tattooed.
no, I am not that type of legalist. that is because one doesn't generally get to see the vidoes. Christian stores don't sell videos and theres not any Christian version of mtv or vh1 thank god! the former is nothing but a liberal proganda channel with few music videos, and vh1 isn't much better.
Do you think that the fact that a Christian musician has tattoos renders their music unlistenable or whatever? or less listenable, etc.

Blessings.

 

[farouk]

jasoncran:

Okay, ty. I guess part of the bottom line is that the plain fact is that many Christian rock and metal musicians that produce good stuff do happen to be tattooed, as questdriven pointed out a while back.

Whether 'happen to be' is the right phrase, or whether for rock metal musicians getting the tattoo is all kind of part of what they are, I'm not sure.

Blessings.

 

[jasoncran]

if we to be that way then no man is perfect and good be used by god.

I will use secular entertainment.some wont watch it now due to gay characters but wouldn't mind watching it when they had characthers that fornicate. what is the difference? what about any sin to me its all about what you feel is unedifying and the Lord says to you.most secular stuff will glorify sin in some manner.i do believe that one day Christians wont be able to watch a lot of that stuff.