Do you believe the above verse teachings tattoos

[DennisD]

I have tattoos but since I've been made aware of that verse, I have no desire to get any tattoos.

[JerryNumbers]

By the way, I'm not condemning anyone who has them, but I do feel that anyone that has them need to seek the Lord forgiveness for having gotten them.

[DennisD]

By the way, I'm not condemning anyone who has them, but I do feel that anyone that has them need to seek the Lord forgiveness for having gotten them.

While I don't necessarily disagree, I think we've discussed this in the past by the way...as we humbly came before Christ and asked him to forgive us and save us...do we really need to go and ask His forgiveness again for each and every sin we've committed in the past? Or has our sins been washed away and we shouldn't continue to dwell on those things. Now, as we sin (in the present)...sure we should ask for forgiveness but I sinned so much in the past...if I sat here and tried to seek God's forgiveness for each and every sin...my life would pass me by.

[JerryNumbers]

While I don't necessarily disagree, I think we've discussed this in the past by the way...as we humbly came before Christ and asked him to forgive us and save us...do we really need to go and ask His forgiveness again for each and every sin we've committed in the past? Or has our sins been washed away and we shouldn't continue to dwell on those things. Now, as we sin (in the present)...sure we should ask for forgiveness but I sinned so much in the past...if I sat here and tried to seek God's forgiveness for each and every sin...my life would pass me by.

Please, I did not say that,

The only reason I added that post was to let anyone who reads this know what they need to do if they have had a tattoo and have not done so.

Ps 103:12 As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

When one has asked forgiveness for what ever it might be, its dropped, gone, forever gone, yet they may be some consequences that comes up.

And yes, I recall discussing this issue several times on here, even since you've been here. And the only reason I started this poll was this came up in another topic and I wondered how others felt about it.

[farouk]

I see what Annie means. I read the thread.

Like for example, someone could be so convinced that piercing is mutilation, and therefore a no-no, that he feels like telling every preacher's wife with earrings that they are a no-no. Whereas, looking gently, carefully and logically, it may indeed be the case that excessive piercing around the body is mutilation. But it may be taking it to extremes to say therefore that one person's opinion about something as widespread among Christians as earrings, should be imposed all round. (In any case, ear piercing can be easily and hygienically done.) We need to remember Romans 14: individual liberty.

I guess similarly with tattoos: they may be far from ideal, but if a person has them, in some way or another learning to cope with them is their business, and not other people's.

[John81]

Those Christians I have known with tattoos from before salvation who were most committed to following Christ kept their tattoos covered as much as possible. They would typically wear long sleeve shirts, even often in the summer, so as not to even risk dishonouring Christ by their display. If asked about their tattoos the saddness was evident that their past life of sin was marked upon their bodies. They acknowledged the sin of it all.

I've also known more worldly Christians who loved the attention their tattoos brought to them. They would glory in telling stories of their sinful lives and how the tattoos related to all this and were a part of their sinful past. Some would even try to use their tattoos to prove they were still cool even if they now called themselves Christian. For most, and perhaps all of them, their tattoos seemed a means for them to hold onto part of their sinful past, a way to enjoy sin vicariously. These felt no saddness at having inked grafitti on them, even though some had devil tattoos, naked women and other wicked things upon them. In fact, these would spend long times bragging upon their tattoos and the sinful life they lived with them.

One of the most dramatic changes I saw take place involved a Satanist. When I first met him he had an evil look about him, a hate, and he openly hated Christians. About a year after I first met him, and after many of us witnessing to him and living Christ around him, he was born again! Of all his sins that which hurt him among the most was his tattoos. He recognized instantly how they were improper upon the temple of the Holy Ghost. He pointed out how one of the reasons Satanists were prompted to get tattoos was as a sign of their rebellion.

[Salyan]

Can I throw my in here? Jerrynumbers, you really need to back off Annie. She is trying to properly examine the verses quoted in the context given, and you're jumping all over her. I don't think tattoos are right either - they have questionable roots and are definitely associated with rebellion and worldliness. And I would love that verse to apply to modern tattoos - it'd make disproving them so easy! But I'm not entirely certain either that that is a good verse to use - after all, I've never heard of anyone nowadays that gets tattoos 'for the dead' - and anyone I tried to use that verse on would certainly be sure to remind me of that fact. Considering the context, can we honestly apply that verse to modern-day practices?

[HappyChristian]

I didn't vote either, because there wasn't a choice that I could actually vote on. My vote would have been on a choice similar to "the principle is contained in the verse..."

Leviticus was given as law. Part of the law that Christ fulfilled on the cross. Exact pieces and parts of that law are no longer in effect...HOWEVER - before anyone tries to accuse me of being ungodly and anti-biblical (even if not in those words, that is what has been leveled at Annie: quite wrongly) - the principle behind the verse is carried out in the New Testament when God tells us we are to be separate from the world. The philosophy of the world, which underlies the conduct of the lost, is to be rejected by Christians.

Tats are part of the cultural philosophy of the lost world. Ergo, tats are to be avoided. As Annie said. She is in agreement that tats aren't right, so why the attack? Why the push to place us under a law which is no longer in effect in God's new covenant with us? And yet ignore the rest of the verse while blithely declaring that someday she'll learn something?

Again, the principle is contained in the verse. That principle being separation from the world. The philosophy of the world is not to be part of the Christian's makeup. And that would, by extension, include tats. If someone had tats done before they were saved, or while they were immature Christians, Christ will forgive...

[John81]

Can I throw my in here? Jerrynumbers, you really need to back off Annie. She is trying to properly examine the verses quoted in the context given, and you're jumping all over her. I don't think tattoos are right either - they have questionable roots and are definitely associated with rebellion and worldliness. And I would love that verse to apply to modern tattoos - it'd make disproving them so easy! But I'm not entirely certain either that that is a good verse to use - after all, I've never heard of anyone nowadays that gets tattoos 'for the dead' - and anyone I tried to use that verse on would certainly be sure to remind me of that fact. Considering the context, can we honestly apply that verse to modern-day practices?

(Before I forget, good post above LuAnne!)

Regarding tattoos for the dead, there are many who get those. I couldn't even begin to count the number of "in memory of" tattoos I've seen over the years. Often these witll have a tattoo image of the dead person, a cross with their name and "in memory of" on a banner across it, a man-designed image of Christ, roses with thorns, etc.

Back to the gangs for a moment, they also are big into tattoos for the dead. Often honouring fallen gang members. On a more sinister note, many gang members tattoo their bodies in specific ways for the dead they have murdered.

In some other parts of the world and in other cultures, it's still a common practice to cut and/or tattoo oneself for the dead.

So, whether the verse applies universally to all tattoos or not, it certainly does apply specifically to many and, as LuAnne stated, the principle within the verse applies to tattoos in general.

[Anon]

My dad took that verse so far as to tell us we were not allowed to pierce our ears...but I believe the Bible teaches otherwise and I got my ears pierced in my 20s. I do think its pretty plain we are not to mark our flesh. The only other time making a mark in skin is discussed is with the Mark of the Beast which is obviously a very bad thing.

Oh and regarding rare steak....in Acts 15:20 it repeats again we are not to eat blood.....very interesting. Not sure how specific that is to how meat is cooked...I like mine medium...

[Salyan]

Hmm... thanks, Kita. I did not know that!

[farouk]

My dad took that verse so far as to tell us we were not allowed to pierce our ears...but I believe the Bible teaches otherwise and I got my ears pierced in my 20s. I do think its pretty plain we are not to mark our flesh. ...

Kitagrl:

In Ezekiel 16.12, the Lord even gave earrings to Zion (and a nose ring, too!)

I certainly have a hard time believing that ear piercing is unbiblical (and so do a lot of preachers' wives!) :)

[John81]

My dad took that verse so far as to tell us we were not allowed to pierce our ears...but I believe the Bible teaches otherwise and I got my ears pierced in my 20s. I do think its pretty plain we are not to mark our flesh. The only other time making a mark in skin is discussed is with the Mark of the Beast which is obviously a very bad thing.

Oh and regarding rare steak....in Acts 15:20 it repeats again we are not to eat blood.....very interesting. Not sure how specific that is to how meat is cooked...I like mine medium...

I'm going to address this in the general sense and not personally, so this isn't directed specifically towards you Suzy, I'm just addressing the things brought up here.

In the case where a parent says "no" to a particular matter, even if there isn't a direct command of "thou shalt not ______", if what the parent stands against, if it doesn't violate the Word of God, their children should honour their command or position on the subject. On a personal note of my own, my Mom spoke a couple of things to me, giving me her biblical perspective of such matters as well as her personal stand. Those couple things don't violate the Word of God but they are not clearly commanded against either. However, in honour of my Mom, I would not violate her words on this. My Mom died almost 10 years ago and I still abide by her words to me on these matters.

With regards to steak, I wouldn't even think of eating a rare steak. If eating such involves eathing the blood then New Testament teaching is clear that Christians are not do do so. As to personal preference, I most often would order a steak well done because most places I've eaten don't seem to have a very clear idea of what medium or well done means. In fact, I think I've only ever received one steak ordered well done that was actually well done when they brought it to the table. I know several folks who like their steak medium but order well done because the restuarants idea of well done is actually closer to medium while their medium is closer to rare.

[Miss Linda]

I'm going to address this in the general sense and not personally, so this isn't directed specifically towards you Suzy, I'm just addressing the things brought up here.

In the case where a parent says "no" to a particular matter, even if there isn't a direct command of "thou shalt not ______", if what the parent stands against, if it doesn't violate the Word of God, their children should honour their command or position on the subject. On a personal note of my own, my Mom spoke a couple of things to me, giving me her biblical perspective of such matters as well as her personal stand. Those couple things don't violate the Word of God but they are not clearly commanded against either. However, in honour of my Mom, I would not violate her words on this. My Mom died almost 10 years ago and I still abide by her words to me on these matters.

With regards to steak, I wouldn't even think of eating a rare steak. If eating such involves eathing the blood then New Testament teaching is clear that Christians are not do do so. As to personal preference, I most often would order a steak well done because most places I've eaten don't seem to have a very clear idea of what medium or well done means. In fact, I think I've only ever received one steak ordered well done that was actually well done when they brought it to the table. I know several folks who like their steak medium but order well done because the restuarants idea of well done is actually closer to medium while their medium is closer to rare.

:amen: Edited June 24, 2011 by Miss Linda

[Annie]

In the case where a parent says "no" to a particular matter, even if there isn't a direct command of "thou shalt not ______", if what the parent stands against, if it doesn't violate the Word of God, their children should honour their command or position on the subject. On a personal note of my own, my Mom spoke a couple of things to me, giving me her biblical perspective of such matters as well as her personal stand. Those couple things don't violate the Word of God but they are not clearly commanded against either. However, in honour of my Mom, I would not violate her words on this. My Mom died almost 10 years ago and I still abide by her words to me on these matters.

I sympathize with this perspective, John. However, I have told my children that when they are grown and on their own, they must make their own decisions for themselves and their families regarding applications of biblical principles. I am also teaching them deference, as my parents taught me. My grandmother believed that it was wrong for women to pierce their ears (not because of this verse, but because it was associated with prostitution and worldliness in her opinion). As long as she was alive, none of the girls or women in her family (including grandchildren) pierced their ears, because we did not want to grieve her. After she passed away, however, we eventually did pierce our ears (not all at once, or with the attitude of "woohoo! we finally get to pierce our ears!"). I think it's fine to choose to honor someone's memory by abiding by their words after they pass away, but at the same time, I do not think it is necessarily dishonorable if you don't.