# Tattoos?



## Zenas

I have 3 tattoos, all had before I was converted, two of them devoted to the idol I worshiped, i.e. my fraternity. 

My question is, am I going to Hell for them?

No, I'm kidding, but seriously. Some would espouse that they are explicitly prohibited in Scripture, whereas others would say that it's a matter of Christian liberty. What is the general consensus here?


----------



## Herald

Andrew,

Check out this THREAD.


----------



## Davidius

I think it's a matter of Christian liberty.


----------



## Herald

In the thread I linked Bob made the point that tatoos call attention to self. I concur. I don't know anyone who gets a tatoo just so they can look at it in the mirror. They are making a statement. They want people to look at them. The same with odd piercings and dying your hair purple. In my humble opinion those things are not about humility. When I encounter a person who exemplifies these things I treat them like I do anybody else. I don't call attention to their personal appearance.


----------



## JBaldwin

You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord Leviticus 19:28

This is the only verse I know of in the Bible that speaks of tattooing. It's pretty clear that God does not want us to go out and damage our bodies with tattoos. You did this before you were converted, and it is costly to remove them. Also, I can't think of any reason from Scripture why you would go to hell for having them. If you belong to God, then you belong to God and what you did before you were converted is under the blood of Christ just as any other sin you have committed or will commit. 

While I know many of my brothers and sisters in Christ find nothing wrong with tattooing, I personally have a problem with it. That is mainly because they are potentially harmful to the body, and we should take care of what God gave us. 

All I can suggest that if your conscience is really bothering you about it, take the matter before the Lord and ask Him what He wants you to do about it. If the tattoos are not a hindrance to your ministering to other people, I really wouldn't get too uptight about it, but if they display things that would damage your testimony, you might want to prayerfully consider covering them up or having them removed.


----------



## Herald

For those who are interested: Tatoo removal system. This one does not require laser treatment or harsh chemicals.


----------



## Davidius

North Jersey Baptist said:


> For those who are interested: Tatoo removal system. This one does not require laser treatment or harsh chemicals.



That looks a lot like Matt's card trick webpage.


----------



## Zenas

I don't have a problem with mine and they aren't bothering me.

Also, all of my tattoos are covered by clothing. No one sees them. Most people don't even know I have them and those who I tell are shocked that I do have them. 

I know of people who want a tattoo in which no one else can see it, totally hidden unless they are completely disrobed. How would these instances work into teh Bawb's reasoning? On top of that, the tattoo they want is devoted to God's sustaining grace.


----------



## Josiah

I am still thinking about a tattoo, but I am not sure. After I became a believer my whole lifestyle changed. I stopped going to dingy Punkrock clubs and many of my priorities changed (such as saving up for one wicked-cool tattoo). Its not that I thought they were wrong, its just that I felt so uncomfortable with certain things that I never would have questioned. For example; When I first started attending a OPC church where I live, I had a lip piercing. I remember I came one sunday with a plug in my pierced lip and I went to talk to my pastor (without telling him about the piercing) and the whole time he couldnt stop looking at it. I knew that he was being very gracious to me and so in time (with much nagging from my Grandma) I took it out and let the hole close. 

In this instance I just felt convicted that it was wrong and that I felt like it made people have an impression of me that wasnt right, that I was some sort of rebellious, immature youth. I wanted to be able to fellowship with other believers without distraction and I think that tattoos (in visible places) and piercing can be just that . I hope I havnt .


----------



## TimV

You can do all sorts of things and still not go to hell, including lots of the things in Lev 19, like having sex with animals, slandering, hating, lying, tricking a disabled person, etc..

The Bible says not to get tattoos, and it seems to me a pretty good argument, especially as that's the way both the Church and Jews have understood it for the past couple thousand years, but who am I to say for sure? 

Of course there are other things in Lev. 19 that some say (and they may be right) are more ceremonial. I had a neighbor in South Africa who wouldn't mow the edges of his alfalfa field because of that chapter, and the poor people really were grateful. They went down and could get enough fodder for their milk goats.

I guess one could quibble about that, and say that in 10BC you HAD to leave some of your crops for the poor, but that after Christ rose from the dead it somehow became morally neutral to either leave something to the poor or take it all....in other words it became Christian liberty.

But to be on the safe side, I surely wouldn't tell anyone that getting a tattoo is Christian liberty. What if you're wrong, and you influence someone to get one?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Here is a livelier discussion on the topic from last October.

http://http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/tattoos-cigarettes-25333/

Here is where I started to break in.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> (Lev 19:28) Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.
> 
> 
> Well it is there so let's deal with this passage and maybe a few around it.
> 
> JFB
> 
> 
> 
> Lev 19:28 - Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead--The practice of making deep gashes on the face and arms and legs, in time of bereavement, was universal among the heathen, and it was deemed a becoming mark of respect for the dead, as well as a sort of propitiatory offering to the deities who presided over death and the grave. The Jews learned this custom in Egypt, and though weaned from it, relapsed in a later and degenerate age into this old superstition (Isa_15:2; Jer_16:6; Jer_41:5).
> 
> nor print any marks upon you--by tattooing, imprinting figures of flowers, leaves, stars, and other fanciful devices on various parts of their person. The impression was made sometimes by means of a hot iron, sometimes by ink or paint, as is done by the Arab females of the present day and the different castes of the Hindus. It is probable that a strong propensity to adopt such marks in honor of some idol gave occasion to the prohibition in this verse; and they were wisely forbidden, for they were signs of apostasy; and, when once made, they were insuperable obstacles to a return. (See allusions to the practice, Isa_44:5; Rev_13:17; Rev_14:1).
Click to expand...


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Seems to be a Christian liberty issue to me. As for calling attention to oneself, I find this hard to believe if it's hidden. If it's not hidden, what if it's a Bible verse, or some other "worthy" tattoo? If not, the person may just like the way it looks. I would not automatically assume someone is trying to attract attention with a tattoo - there are too many other reasons to have one.

I personally have none, but I don't think it's by any means sinful.


----------



## BJClark

ColdSilverMoon;



> Seems to be a Christian liberty issue to me. As for calling attention to oneself, I find this hard to believe if it's hidden. If it's not hidden, what if it's a Bible verse, or some other "worthy" tattoo? If not, the person may just like the way it looks. I would not automatically assume someone is trying to attract attention with a tattoo - there are too many other reasons to have one.
> 
> I personally have none, but I don't think it's by any means sinful.



How are they not drawing attention to oneself? 

Let's say they get it in a 'hidden place' what was the purpose of getting it at all? To satisfy one's flesh of knowing they HAVE a tatoo? 

All the people I know who have tatoo's got them in order to show them to off, or put another way...to draw attention to themselves.

Let's say they get a tattoo of a Bible verse, if it's in a hidden place who is going to see it? So what would be the purpose?

Would that verse be more of a reminder for them of one passage of Scripture, as they would be the only one to see it? (depending where it is, they may not even be able to see it themselves--without looking in the mirror) 

And in that it would be in a hidden place, where would that hidden place be?

if it's a women looking to get a tatoo, what hidden place would she get a tatoo, that she would have to expose that area of her body to the tatoo artist?

Same with a man, if it's a hidden place, wouldn't he too still have to expose that part of his body to the tatoo artist? 


What would be some other reasons for getting a tatoo?


----------



## Pergamum

The bible DOES NOT say "Don't get a tatto" It says do not cut yourself "for the dead."

The purpose of tattoes is usually for beauty reasons...i.e. it is a cutting but not for the dead. 

The reasons for cutting one's self for the dead is another reason...



If tattoes are opposed because they scar the body than circumcision must also be opposed and piercing the ears or nose. 

The question is not about marking on the body but WHY we mark the body.


----------



## Pergamum

I have considerd getting a tatto of my wedding ring on my finger so that I can throw out this annoying metal one that I wear now.


----------



## TimV

Hi, Perg!

Actually if you look up the words (Strong's 5414 and 7085) they are "print" and "tattoo".

Modern practicing Jews have an interesting take, in that they say it was/is forbidden as your body is on loan.

BTW, when I was in PNG we were in an area where the old women all had missing joints in their fingers. I was in my young 20s, and it really freaked me out; if figured it was some sort of gender related disease or something. Then I found out that when a man died, his female relatives would bite off one of their finger joints so show sorrow. They didn't want his ghost to think that they didn't mourn his passing enough!
Best
Tim


----------



## Josiah

Pergamum said:


> The bible DOES NOT say "Don't get a tatto" It says do not cut yourself "for the dead."
> 
> The purpose of tattoes is usually for beauty reasons...i.e. it is a cutting but not for the dead.
> 
> The reasons for cutting one's self for the dead is another reason...
> 
> 
> 
> If tattoes are opposed because they scar the body than circumcision must also be opposed and piercing the ears or nose.
> 
> The question is not about marking on the body but WHY we mark the body.



I agree with your reasoning, but my reasoning against tattoos is a little different. I live in a place where it is quite normal to have tattoos, and all manner of piercings. In fact in some neighborhoods in Seattle you cant hardly pass someone by without seeing at least one tattoo or several on someone (especially on friday nights). 







My first reason for resisting the urge to get a tattoo, is that if I did how would I then be any different from those who are around me? I love the artwork on tattoos. In fact I think we have some of the best artists here in seattle. But as a matter of liberty I cannot in good conscience (yet) bring myself to get one. I am still wrestling with it though.

My second reason is; Why does anyone get a tattoo? Tattoos can be beautiful, no doubt. Tattoos are most normally (from what I have seen) worn in noticable places and this is intentional on the part of the tattooee. This being said, I think that there is an inherent danger of vanity wrapped up in the motivation behind marking yourself. If its not vain then why not stop at just one? what is the motivation for more markings? I see that tattoos can be simply drawing attention to yourself just so people will know just how "hip" you can be. Also I have seen tattoos on the opposite sex that draw too much attention in places that should not be exhibited. 

forgive my rant, I am a recovering hipster.


----------



## Pergamum

Yep, they do that here too.


It doesn't matter if it is print or tatto, it states the purpose of the print or tattoo in the text as "for the dead" - modern tattoes are not for the dead, only New Guinea digit removals. Therfore modern tattoes cannot be condemned on the basis of this OT passage.


----------



## Gryphonette

I'm not one to get wildly bent out of shape about a Christian getting a tattoo, but OTOH, it definitely puzzles me a bit why he or she would want to.

As Pergy correctly noted, there is certainly some context to the prohibition against tattoos that can loosen what at first blush appears to be a fairly firm restriction.

But at the same time, we are to search the Scriptures to try to determine what pleases the LORD and behave thus. In other words,, we aren't supposed to trying to figure out just how far we can go without _really_ getting into trouble, but instead, figure out what _best_ pleases Him and do that.

No one needs a tattoo, surely. There's a Biblical restriction on them, at least WRT particular situations. Since tattoos are mentioned just once in Scripture, and that negatively, I'd expect Christians to decide against them. Why run any risk of giving offense to the LORD at all? This has nothing to do with one's being saved, but goodness, just because I believe in perseverance of the saints doesn't mean I don't worry about offending the LORD.

I love Him. Why would I want to offend Him? Even if nothing "bad" is going to happen to me. I try to not offend or annoy or otherwise disappoint my husband, even though I know if I do he's not going to hit or divorce me or anything. He'll likely not mention it at all.

This reticence on his part ought not to be taken and used by me as an excuse to do what I want, never mind whether it bugs him or not.

It reminds me of an argument I had years ago (online) with an RC regarding that organization's dumping the title "Queen of Heaven" on Mary.

Considering the negative way the title "Queen of Heaven" is portrayed in Scripture (as an idol), it's simply weird that the RCC would think _that's_ a suitable moniker for the mother of the Savior. The RC's defense was remarkably similar to the defense offered by those who defend tattoos on Christians (received post-regeneration), i.e. it's not the same situation; look at the context, etc.

My tuppence, and worth every dime. ;^)


----------



## BJClark

Pergamum;



> The bible DOES NOT say "Don't get a tatto" It says do not cut yourself "for the dead."



It also says "Nor print any marks upon you:"



> The purpose of tattoes is usually for beauty reasons...i.e. it is a cutting but not for the dead.



Hmmm, I would disagree with you...I have yet to see tatoo's done to bring about a person's beauty, or even to make them 'more' beautiful.

granted in some tribe in Africa it may be sign of beauty for a women to get a tatoo, but even then what is the motive behind why they are getting the tatoo? Is it not the same...to draw attention to themselves?

You may say, well, it's the same thing as a woman in the states wearing make-up to look more beautiful, and in some ways it may be, but in most cases make-up is not permanent (though it is becoming more popular) and can be washed off where a husband will see the full beauty of his wife without all the make-up and artistry done on her outward appearance..with tatoo's that is not the case..




> The question is not about marking on the body but WHY we mark the body.



To which I would agree...but again what is the purpose other than to draw attention to oneself?

Say a tribe in Africa it could be 1) a way to find a husband or wife; 2) a sign of wealth or affluence in a tribe...and even then aren't they still drawing attention to themselves after they get the tatoo as everyone comes to look at it? To see that new tatoo? Or the new piercing?

And as circumcision was commanded by God at one point as a sign of covenant, and is no longer used as a sign, that arguement would be moot..(Acts 15)


----------



## Blaktyme

*The Heart behind the tattoo?*



Pergamum said:


> The bible DOES NOT say "Don't get a tatto" It says do not cut yourself "for the dead."
> 
> The purpose of tattoes is usually for beauty reasons...i.e. it is a cutting but not for the dead.
> 
> The reasons for cutting one's self for the dead is another reason...
> 
> 
> 
> If tattoes are opposed because they scar the body than circumcision must also be opposed and piercing the ears or nose.
> 
> The question is not about marking on the body but WHY we mark the body.



Hmmm? The Leviticus 19:28 text is pretty clear to me. Now whether the text is taken out of context, or poorly translated is another thing. That can be argued. I'm not equipped to argue that at this time.

Here's my _personal _opinion:
1. Don't get one if you don't have one.
2. If you have one, and it's offensive (ie. naked person, profanity, etc.) have it removed.
3. If you have one and it's not offensive, don't worry about it unless:
a. it violates your conscious to keep it.
b. it's a major distraction to others, and you are not able to conceal it.
c. you refuse to have it removed for ungodly reasons.

If agreee with Pergamum. The big question is "why?". The heart of the matter is what is most important. Even good works can be an abomination before God if they are done for selfish reasons.

Once again always keep in mind Romans 14...liberties with regard for others.


----------



## TimV

Well, not to beat a horse that's either alive or dead, but again for the sake of someone considering doing it,


> It doesn't matter if it is print or tatto, it states the purpose of the print or tattoo in the text as "for the dead"


I suppose that in some English translations the text could be ambiguous. In others, like the Septuagint it's "and in addition to not cutting yourself for the dead, don't get any tattoos"


> 19:28 And ye shall not make cuttings in your body for a dead body, and ye shall not inscribe on yourselves any marks.





> modern tattoes are not for the dead, only New Guinea digit removals. Therfore modern tattoes cannot be condemned on the basis of this OT passage


Still, Jews for 3,500 years and Christians for 2000 years have thought that they were condemned. Which of course doesn't make them right, but it does give one pause.


----------



## Pergamum

circumcision is not a totally moot point. It serves no fucntion now and yet most westerners do it. It is mutilation, scarring and an unneccessary surgical procedure. It is even done to gain a more socially accetabel appearance and thus is is, in many ways, like the issue of tattoes.


Again, the prohibition of the cutting of the flesh was coupled with being "for the dead" in the OT. I suppose we could try to remove what the Bible has joined together, but this OT passage does associate he two together and a tattoe that is for "beauty reasons" (according to some standards of bauty) is not the same as ritual mutilation of the flesh to honor the dead or to summon the dead.


----------



## Pergamum

TimV: The early church was nearly totally pacifistic and would not serve in the Roman army. Most Christians today, however, say that one can be a Christian and a soldier. Most of the early church also were premil weren't they?

All I am saying is that if we condemn tattoes, we cannot do so on the basis of Lev. and that some of the same principles by which we condemn tattoes would also condemn circumcision, earrings and noserings.

The Lev. verses seems to be linked with pagan worship or animism or mourning writes. Modern day tattoes are attempts to beautify the body.


----------



## TimV

> circumcision is not a totally moot point. It serves no fucntion now and yet most westerners do it.



That is factually incorrect on both accounts. Europeans can tell you that most Westerners don't do it, and in addition it makes cleaning easier among other things. Study after study has shown benefits, the most newsworthy lately having been done in Africa and shown to reduce AIDS to a measurable extent.


----------



## TimV

> TimV: The early church was nearly totally pacifistic and would not serve in the Roman army. Most Christians today, however, say that one can be a Christian and a soldier. Most of the early church also were premil weren't they?


To say that Jews for 3,500 years and Christians for 2000 years were pacifistic and premil is incorrect.



> All I am saying is that if we condemn tattoes, we cannot do so on the basis of Lev. and that some of the same principles by which we condemn tattoes would also condemn circumcision, earrings and noserings.


And while I sympathise with your thinking on one level, you are still wrong. For instance you can't touch a dead unclean animal like elephants or camels, but John the Baptist wore a camel hair robe and Solomon imported ivory. There are levels and levels when you get into theology, and if it were as clear cut as you seem to be suggesting, then 99% of Christians who ever lived missed something very obvious!


> The Lev. verses seems to be linked with pagan worship or animism or mourning writes. Modern day tattoes are attempts to beautify the body.


While you may be right, it's still speculation on your part.
Regards
Tim


----------



## Arch2k

Deu 14:1 "You are the children of the LORD your God; you shall not cut yourselves nor shave the front of your head for the dead.​


----------



## Greg

Pergamum said:


> Modern day tattoos are attempts to beautify the body.



Which of course, as has already been mentioned, lends itself to vanity and glorying in one's flesh. Drawing attention to oneself in such a manner has "hey, look at me" written all over it...same with piercings such as lip and tongue piercings. Natural fallen human tendency is toward pride..."I want to do it my way", "It's all about me", "Check me out". I know a lot of people who have tattoos and they really do love to show them off to others. They love to compare their tattoos with one another and really admire them. It's their physical "centerpiece" so to speak.

Modern man will explain that it's just artwork or a way to make an individualized statement about themselves...which is my exact point! For them, it's all about _individuality_ and _self_.

Now I know I've made a generalized statment that won't apply to every tattooed person without exception, but in my casual everyday experience, the people who have tattoos are generally ardent "individualists". And I know that it's not the tattoos that make them that way, the tattoos are just one of many ways we use to express that natural fallen human tendency we all have from birth, namely pride and vanity (self).

Is it a matter of Christian liberty? I would probably say yes. But as with everything we do in this life, I believe we need to sincerely ask ourselves what our _true_ motives are for choosing to do so. We need to ask God to expose any ungodly and self seeking/self glorifying motives we may have behind what we are considering.


----------



## Ginny Dohms

> What would be some other reasons for getting a tatoo?



A burn victim can have new eyebrows tattooed on, and severe facial scarring minimized by tattoos (injecting a skin tone coloring into the scar so it is less visible). This can be done to draw attention 'away' from themselves, rather than to themselves. This, I believe, is a lawful use of tattoos.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

No tattoo for me. Not because of biblical reasons--I just don't like needles!

Seriously though, I think it's a matter of Christian Liberty. I would neither condemn, nor commend them to a fellow Christian. 

As for tattoos that were gotten prior to becoming a Christian, it is my considered opinion that if they can be seen by others, and are offensive to your fellow believers, or blasphemous-- they should be removed, or covered.


----------



## DMcFadden

Zenas said:


> I have 3 tattoos, all had before I was converted, two of them devoted to the idol I worshiped, i.e. my fraternity.
> 
> My question is, am I going to Hell for them?



Andrew, NO of course not!!! That is ridiculous! Who in their right mind would suggest that you are going to "go to Hell" for getting tattoos?

In your case, there are actually SOOOOOO many other good reasons to explain the destination without resorting to those ugly needle dye marks. 

One of my five kids has enough tats (minus one) to put me in an early grave (one of them reads--in 2" high letters: "soli deo" on the back of one leg and "gloria" on the other--Oy veh!!!). I am WAY too old to understand why people of your generation would even consider them. My thinking at this time comes closest to Gryphonette.


----------



## Davidius

I think the Leviticus argument is better than the argument from vanity. We make tons of decisions everyday regarding our appearance that are ultimately unnecessary. Many women wear earrings because they want to look nice. There's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Ginny Dohms said:


> What would be some other reasons for getting a tatoo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A burn victim can have new eyebrows tattooed on, and severe facial scarring minimized by tattoos (injecting a skin tone coloring into the scar so it is less visible). This can be done to draw attention 'away' from themselves, rather than to themselves. This, I believe, is a lawful use of tattoos.
Click to expand...


Interesting points.


----------



## Craig

I'm on the fence about tattoos. I've known people who have gotten them for a number of different reasons:

beauty, rebellion, sexual arrousal, identity.

It is my opinion that tattoos are rarely beautiful...

Rebellion is obvious...so's sexuality when you consider things like "tramp stamps", etc...the oft neglected reason is identity. This is dangerous because it is a permanent association with a subculture...people are defining who they are by what is on their skin, and many times the groups they identify themselves with are opposed to Christianity...they tend to be malecontents who have joined the mass subculture of that despises normalcy. It's pride disguised as counterculture...I saw it time and again amongst professing Christians who got tattoos...they revelled in being despised by other Christians...strange for believers to disassociate themselves from other believers and opting for what the world embraces.

9 times out of 10, I do see tattoos as a relgious identification...whether the one believes in any particular religion or not.

Do I think Christians ought to despise fellow believers with tattoos? No. I certainly don't. In fact, I pay very little attention to tattoos on those that have them. We would be foolish to ignore the principle of identification, who we belong to, and who we ought to be identified with. We may not get tattoos for strange rituals related to death...but remember: those rituals were about identity within a culture and an acceptance of certain standards...just because we don't have these "primitive" beliefs doesn't mean there isn't a current pagan identity that goes along with the package.


----------



## Pergamum

So,

It appears that the two main arguments against tattoes are (1) The Leviticus argument, and (2) the Vanity argument.

Whether I have argued badly above or not, I simply don't see either of these arguments as watertight. That is my main point.



The Lev. argument was for a nation under civil law and the vanity argument could also be applied to makeup, earings, noserings and other legitimate forms of beautification of the body, which is not per se evil.


Whether tattoes ARE actually beautiful or not is another issue - people do get them often for body modification or beautification though, even if a bad choice of actions to enhance beauty.

Like Ginny says, tattoes of eyebrows for burn victims seems to show that tattoes are not evil in themselves but might be evil based on the reasons attached to the motivation of getting them.


----------



## Greg

Davidius said:


> I think the Leviticus argument is better than the argument from vanity. We make tons of decisions everyday regarding our appearance that are ultimately unnecessary. Many women wear earrings because they want to look nice. There's nothing wrong with that.



True, I don't disagree. However, not every decision we make everyday regarding our appearance and personal hygiene is rooted in _genuine_ vanity _as defined by Scripture_ (a love of self to the degree of self exaltation and exhibition). Regarding a woman's beauty, Scripture declares:

"Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious." -1 Peter 3:3-4

Certainly this passage is not condemning _all_ physical hygiene and the care one take of themselves physically speaking in the fixing their hair, wearing of clean and presentable clothes, etc... It's addressing the heart of the matter (and the person), _why_ we do what we do? Are we to be concerned with our appearance simply for appearances sake to such a degree and manner that it's sole purpose is to draw attention to ourselves? This is vanity, and again its root is in sinful man's pride in man...this is no small matter, nor a weak argument scripturally speaking.

Again, I agree with everyone who has said that tattoos, earrings, etc... in and of themselves are not sinful, but rather the intentions of one's heart in choosing to adorn themselves with such that makes it so.



Pergamum said:


> the vanity argument could also be applied to makeup, earings, noserings and other legitimate forms of beautification of the body, which is not per se evil.



Yes, it _could_...depends on one's intentions though. There was a thread on here recently regarding bodybuilding. Certainly taking care of one's self and keeping in shape for health's sake is not wrong. But doing so based on the intention of self exultation and glorying in the flesh is wrong...and is vanity.



> Like Ginny says, tattoos of eyebrows for burn victims seems to show that tattoos are not evil in themselves but might be evil based on the reasons attached to the motivation of getting them.



I agree.


----------

