# Tattoos and Cigarettes



## Andrew P.C.

Are tattoos unbiblical? Displeasing to God? How about Cigarette smoking? 

Since I've been raised in a SBC church, I was always taught these are sinful. Any thoughts?


----------



## blhowes

Andrew P.C. said:


> Are tattoos unbiblical? Displeasing to God? How about Cigarette smoking?
> 
> Since I've been raised in a SBC church, I was always taught these are sinful. Any thoughts?


I'm sure you know why nobody's responded to your post yet,? They're outside taking a cigarette break. They should be back soon.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Andrew P.C.

blhowes said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are tattoos unbiblical? Displeasing to God? How about Cigarette smoking?
> 
> Since I've been raised in a SBC church, I was always taught these are sinful. Any thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you know why nobody's responded to your post yet,? They're outside taking a cigarette break. They should be back soon.
Click to expand...


----------



## turmeric

*[This is only an opinion. In the event of true theologizing, actual literate theology would follow this warning!]*

In my humble opinion, tattooing probably had pagan origins, and at that time was against the Law of God, like cutting oneself for the dead, etc. However, for most people nowadays, it's a form of decoration only. One would have to decide if it were wise, i.e. if you'd be embarrased by it someday or if it would negatively impact your career; if not, why not?

As for smoking, I'm sure that's a matter of one's individual health and tastes.

*[This was only an opinion.No theology was actually taking place.]*


----------



## Jim Johnston

I posted a blog on the subjects of tattoos (where I argue that it is permissible). There was also a lengthy discussion that folowed.

Triablogue: Getting Inked

Smoking may be acceptable in moderation. But I think chain smoking (or, heavy smoking) is a violation of the 6th commandment.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Tom Bombadil said:


> I posted a blog on the subjects of tattoos (where I argue that it is permissible). There was also a lengthy discussion that folowed.
> 
> Triablogue: Getting Inked
> 
> Smoking may be acceptable in moderation. But I think chain smoking (or, heavy smoking) is a violation of the 6th commandment.



Thanks for the link... i'll check it out.


----------



## Gloria

blhowes said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are tattoos unbiblical? Displeasing to God? How about Cigarette smoking?
> 
> Since I've been raised in a SBC church, I was always taught these are sinful. Any thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you know why nobody's responded to your post yet,? They're outside taking a cigarette break. They should be back soon.
Click to expand...


LOL


----------



## Ivan

I question of the wisdom of participating in either activity. I have no interest in either one and I find them replusive. 

My frank opinion.


----------



## christiana

I would consider both sinful as the tatooing is a form of mutilation of the body and smoking is certainly damaging to the body. Our body is the temple of God and should be treated with honor and care, promoting health and well being. ' Whatsoever you do in word or deed, do all to the glory of God!' Neither of those bring glory to Him!


----------



## Andrew P.C.

sirhicks said:


> I don't care for tatoos personally, but don't _necessarily_ have a problem with someone else doing so. As far as smokes, one should not be _mastered_ by anything. I, myself, like Pipe Tobacco, some cigars, and the aroma of Winston cigarettes.



So, would you say that cigarette smoking is ok *in moderation* ?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

sirhicks said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sirhicks said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care for tatoos personally, but don't _necessarily_ have a problem with someone else doing so. As far as smokes, one should not be _mastered_ by anything. I, myself, like Pipe Tobacco, some cigars, and the aroma of Winston cigarettes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, would you say that cigarette smoking is ok *in moderation* ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem goes like this. There is no blanket statement. I wouldn't say it's ok for everyone without exception to smoke cigarettes, even in moderation. But I also wouldn't say that it's sinful for all people without exception to do so.
> 
> An excellent series I thought, concerning matters such as the aforementioned was a podcast put out by Saints and Sinners titled "Bet, Drink, Smoke, and Chew and Run With Girls That Do" (or something similar). They deal with all of these things in a bit of detail.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I've heard the entire series. The problem though is that many people have mixed feelings about this. I don't see anything wrong with smoking a cigarette if done in moderation. The only way I can see this as becoming sinful is if you don't have control over your cigarette smoking. 

But, what about other people in your congregation? What if they view it as sinful? Should you quit? If so, would this apply to wearing clothes? Driving a motorcycle? Choice of Car? Beverage?


----------



## AV1611

I believe that both are sinful.


----------



## SRoper

Body "mutilation" is not necessarily sinful as God required circumcision. Nose rings seem to be held up as beautiful (Gen. 24:47, Eze. 16:12).

The "body is a temple" is in the context of sexual immorality. It has nothing to do with taking care of your body.

I believe both activities are permissible, although tobacco is properly consumed in a pipe made of briar or meerschaum.


----------



## christiana

It definitely speaks of conforming to the world, not being separate or different and being willing to do all for the glory of God. Seems to me to be a very liberal stance!


----------



## Me Died Blue

What about things like fried chicken, burgers, ice cream and soda in moderation - does consumption of those constitute "taking care of the body"?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

(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).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Tatooing does seem to be ruled out by Lev. 19:28 (though I am aware there is an argument against this).

Smoking, if this can be done in moderation then it is your Christian liberty to do so. Others may not like what you are doing, but if they cannot prove its sinful _from Scripture_ (either by explicit statement or valid logical deduction) they have to be mature enough not to dispute with you over "doubtful things" (Rom. 14:1), though be careful not to indulge in such a liberty in a way that would offend a weaker brother.


----------



## Jim Johnston

CredoCovenanter 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...


I deal with it in my post above.

Also, so does (baptist) Gene Bridges in the comment section of my post.

In fact, all the arguments expressed above are dealt with in my post.

They are shown to be subject to serious reductio ad absurdems, or just based on flat-out bad reasoning.

So, the "anti" views boil down to merely opinion. At this level, you're allowed to hold that opinion, but not to Lord it over others and charge anyone with committing an objectively sinful act. To the extent that comments here do not take into account the argumention made in my post (and by my fellow commenters), they can be dismissed as an example of "don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up."


----------



## Gesetveemet

Andrew P.C. said:


> Are tattoos unbiblical? Displeasing to God? . . . Any thoughts?



The motive for getting a tattoo is to imitate current fashions of the world. It is also a returning to pagan practices of doing to our bodies what WE want. So yes tattoos are unbiblical and displeasing to God.




.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Davidius

Gesetveemet said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are tattoos unbiblical? Displeasing to God? . . . Any thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The motive for getting a tattoo is to imitate current fashions of the world. It is also a returning to pagan practices of doing to our bodies what WE want. So yes tattoos are unbiblical and displeasing to God.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

What if you get a tattoo of a cigarette? A paradox presents itself


----------



## sotzo

Isn't it the job of the person claiming an activity is sinful to demonstrate from the Scriptures how it is sinful? Arguing a negative has its problems. Seems to me that everything is permissible unless demonstrated from the Scriptures otherwise. (I Cor 10.23). Of course, in line with what Paul says, every activity becomes sinful if it usurps the rightful place of God in the life of the believer.


----------



## Jim Johnston

sirhicks said:


> No Longer A Libertine said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you get a tattoo of a cigarette?
> 
> 
> 
> Or smoke a tattoo?
Click to expand...


or, tattoo your _cigarette_, drop it in a bottle of beer, and then down the whole thing!


----------



## Richard King

I can't really vote because good or bad I have already done both.

All I know is it is a great title for a country song.


----------



## SRoper

Gesetveemet said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are tattoos unbiblical? Displeasing to God? . . . Any thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The motive for getting a tattoo is to imitate current fashions of the world. It is also a returning to pagan practices of doing to our bodies what WE want. So yes tattoos are unbiblical and displeasing to God.
Click to expand...


One of the current fashion trends for men is wearing pants and a shirt, which happens to be what I'm wearing now. Am I following the world?

And what's wrong with doing what I want to do?


----------



## christiana

Do you also consider it acceptable to expose ample cleaveage, fore and aft? I consider it very offensive and displeasing to the Lord, yet from what you say you might think it to concern no one but yourself, is that right?


----------



## swilson

A woman was sunbathing on the beaches of Southern California; a man walked up next to her smoking a cig...she looked up to him, "Sir, you go to my church. How can you call yourself "Christian" and smoke what can give your temple cancer?

The man smirked as he said, "Woman, I know you...I am wondering, if you allow me to borrow from your logic...how you can seek a tan in the hot sun when you know that you are subjecting yourself to skin cancer upon the temple of the Holy Spirit?"

A woman was eating a colon cancer causing peice of meat, and up walked a man pouring aspertame into his iced tea....


----------



## jbergsing

For those who consider tattooing a sin (I have none at this time), what of the crosses tattooed on people? Is a cross not glorifying God?


----------



## christiana

Sooo, what I'm hearing on this board is that 'anything goes' and there are no boundaries to be drawn socially regarding dress, behavior or mutilation of the body, is this correct? No limits!

I believe if you dont stand firm for something, you will soon fall for anything. Is this rigid thinking? It seems I hear that to follow the trend of the world is a good thing, to fit into the societal mode and not be a squeaky wheel. Dont stand out like a sore thumb. Dont mention that there must be discernment in all things, including what we read, how we dress, where we go, what we eat and in everything we do. Is this what is considered the christian thinking of today? I'd really like to know. Please advise.


----------



## Davidius

christiana said:


> Sooo, what I'm hearing on this board is that 'anything goes' and there are no boundaries to be drawn socially regarding dress, behavior or mutilation of the body, is this correct? No limits!



I don't think anyone has said this. Some are just saying that "doing what the 'world' is doing" is not necessarily sinful. Several people have used that line as a standalone reason for why something is wrong, which is an example of overly-simplistic and outright silly reasoning. There are tons of things the "world" does which we can also do. It only sounds pious to those who don't think.


----------



## christiana

quote:


> It only sounds pious to those who don't think.



Now that wasnt very nice! 

If we follow Rom 12:1,2 then there must obviously be great distinctive differences between the world and the christian. Are we too see how much of what they do is permissible for us; seeing how close to the edge we can live! Why do christians feel a need to 'eat' their own and declare them of a lesser 'quality' of christian if they choose to live more piously, choosing to grow ever closer to the Lord, remain separate from the world, perhaps being an intercessor. Why does that make them bait for other christians to criticize? Do you see their honest desires for such to be pharisaical or what? Hmmmm


----------



## Jim Johnston

christiana said:


> Do you also consider it acceptable to expose ample cleaveage, fore and aft? I consider it very offensive and displeasing to the Lord, yet from what you say you might think it to concern no one but yourself, is that right?




We can provide verses which explicitly speak to the contrary.

The p[roblem with your analogy, is that you cannot provide verses for your position on this matter under discussion.


----------



## Jim Johnston

christiana said:


> Sooo, what I'm hearing on this board is that 'anything goes' and there are no boundaries to be drawn socially regarding dress, behavior or mutilation of the body, is this correct? No limits!
> 
> I believe if you dont stand firm for something, you will soon fall for anything. Is this rigid thinking? It seems I hear that to follow the trend of the world is a good thing, to fit into the societal mode and not be a squeaky wheel. Dont stand out like a sore thumb. Dont mention that there must be discernment in all things, including what we read, how we dress, where we go, what we eat and in everything we do. Is this what is considered the christian thinking of today? I'd really like to know. Please advise.




Well, we all "stand for something." For example, we stand for justification by faith alone. That's where I'll make a stand. Not on justification by no tattoos alone.

Further, what we're telling you is that if you can't find support in the Bible, then don't bind our conscience.

I think we agree with Augustine here: "Love God and do as you please." - St. Augustine.


----------



## BobVigneault

We've argued this a few times now. One wasn't so long ago but I think we needed to delete for the safety of one of our missionaries. In that one I had linked to my blog in which I dealt somewhat with the topic of tattoos. Here is the link. I'm against the practice though there is no explicit biblical argument against it. I SURE WISH THERE WAS! Here is the link to my blog post.

I also wish I was in the tattoo removal business. The pattern of this world regarding 'tats' has already begun to swing. Tattoo removal businesses are going to clean up. (No pun intended.)


----------



## Davidius

christiana said:


> quote:
> 
> 
> 
> It only sounds pious to those who don't think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that wasnt very nice!
> 
> If we follow Rom 12:1,2 then there must obviously be great distinctive differences between the world and the christian. Are we too see how much of what they do is permissible for us; seeing how close to the edge we can live! Why do christians feel a need to 'eat' their own and declare them of a lesser 'quality' of christian if they choose to live more piously, choosing to grow ever closer to the Lord, remain separate from the world, perhaps being an intercessor. Why does that make them bait for other christians to criticize? Do you see their honest desires for such to be pharisaical or what? Hmmmm
Click to expand...


You're right, there does need to be a big difference between the world and the Christian. But it _is_ the Pharisees who take that to mean something completely external. They always have and they still do. It _isn't_ pious to add to God's commandments. We _don't_ become "closer to the Lord" by following rules we make up for ourselves in order to feel holier. 

But as Paul M., I too do not have a problem with someone not wanting to get a tattoo or smoke. What I have a problem with is the casting of burdensome extra-biblical commandments onto the consciences of other Christians in order to make them conform to some individual's extra-biblical standard of holiness.


----------



## christiana

Thanks for all the input, I think. This has long been an issue I find troubling. Actually I think the Romans 12:1,2 and many other verses give clear boundaries for our behavior though they certainly do require discernment. 'Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus' shows where our focus should be, on Him, not on decorating our body in a pagan manner. Seems to me some just like to live on the edge and push the limits rather than to see how very much they can learn and know of Him and 'Study to show themselves approved unto God, a workman that needeth no to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth'. What, while covered in grotesque tattoos yet? I dont think so. Is our focus on ourself or Him where it should be? Seems what I see and hear here is very sad. Do you hate to do what is displeasing to Him? Are you so sure He would find those gross tattoos acceptable and glorifying to Him! I find them terribly offensive.
I'm off to call to Him and to ask for guidance, not for a tattoo, but for my heart to be one that loves the brethren! Sometimes I find that to be my biggest challenge.
Did you read the article on MOdesty by Mary Mohler? She declares boundaries clearly!!
I will always have much to learn, much to pray over, much mercy and grace needed!


----------



## JBaldwin

Bob- 

I read your blog and couldn't agree more. 



> I also wish I was in the tattoo removal business. The pattern of this world regarding 'tats' has already begun to swing. Tattoo removal businesses are going to clean up. (No pun intended.)



By the way, my husband has a co-worker who just moved to South Carolina from California. She was a tatoo artist and said in California, there is now more money there in tatoo removal than in tatoo application.


----------



## Davidius

christiana said:


> Are you so sure He would find those gross tattoos acceptable and glorifying to Him! *I* find them terribly offensive.



And this is the great error of modern Fundamentalism.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Are these your reasons for the Leviticus passage? I just want to be clear.
Paul...


> I am familiar with that verse, and I must now come clean with what I forgot to add in my original post. I didn't get any of my tattoos "for the dead." Furthermore, I don't believe that Lev. 19:28 is part of what is commonly referred to as part of the moral law. It has ceremonial intentions, i.e., the setting apart of Israel from the nations around them.



Gene...


> Paul is right. The Bible condemns tattooing for the dead . So, what makes tattooing sinful in the Law is idolatry. So, he's right, its part of the ceremonial law, but we need to remember that it is indexed to the moral law through the caveat "for the dead." Tattooing itself isn't idolatrous. Tattooing for the dead is idolatrous, and those around Israel were concrete exemplars of it. Is getting a tattoo today idolatry or not? If so, where is the NT argument to support it? Is it an inversion of the creation order? If it is, then is it illicit to trim the hedges of your house? Isn't that inverting the creation order too? Do those who oppose tattooing also oppose the cutting of the hair of the head along the sides on males? Do they wear clothes woven of multiple fibers? No and No. Why? Because there are not pagans around us doing these things. On the other hand, if the Secret Police were to rise up and command us to grow our hair out to worship the Lord President of the United States, we would have license to invoke that text. Why? Because then it would, be idolatrous, of course.



I will be gone tomorrow so I won't be able to discuss this till Monday. But I just want to be clear about your arguments so that I have your understanding. I am not accusing you of sin as Jamison, Fausset, and Brown are. I am collecting data. But this passage is one that has kept me from ever getting one. I am not sure about his inversion argument. I am not sure that the New Testament needs to condemn or call Tattooing an idolatrous act. Especially if the Old Covenant already does. And I am not so convinced it doesn't yet. The new Testament doesn't necessarily condemn some acts the Old Covenant does condemn. But because they aren't mentioned in the New Covenant doesn't make it okay to make void the Old Testament command. Especially if the Old Covenant does condemn an immoral act. Or does it? That seems to be a part of Gene's argument. And we can argue about whether or not this passage is a moral law argument later. It sure is surrounded by a lot of moral teaching. Like the following verse that isn't repeated in the New Testament discussing making your daughters prostitutes. 

I am not a Hebrew scholar but I am not so sure that 'For the dead' is necessarily attached to the marking part. I will look into it.


----------



## christiana

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> christiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> quote:
> 
> 
> 
> It only sounds pious to those who don't think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that wasnt very nice!
> 
> If we follow Rom 12:1,2 then there must obviously be great distinctive differences between the world and the christian. Are we too see how much of what they do is permissible for us; seeing how close to the edge we can live! Why do christians feel a need to 'eat' their own and declare them of a lesser 'quality' of christian if they choose to live more piously, choosing to grow ever closer to the Lord, remain separate from the world, perhaps being an intercessor. Why does that make them bait for other christians to criticize? Do you see their honest desires for such to be pharisaical or what? Hmmmm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, there does need to be a big difference between the world and the Christian. But it _is_ the Pharisees who take that to mean something completely external. They always have and they still do. It _isn't_ pious to add to God's commandments. We _don't_ become "closer to the Lord" by following rules we make up for ourselves in order to feel holier.
> 
> But as Paul M., I too do not have a problem with someone not wanting to get a tattoo or smoke. What I have a problem with is the casting of burdensome extra-biblical commandments onto the consciences of other Christians in order to make them conform to some individual's extra-biblical standard of holiness.
Click to expand...


I'm not making any rules but I am observing and discerning and feel that the external reveals what has or has not occurred on the inside, whether a person a truly regenerate. I would challenge you to listen to this sermon on what the church is and who is in it, especially the part that speaks to how our life reveals to whom we belong! As it says in Romans, we are slaves to Him whom we obey. Neither the smoking nor the tattoo would serve to glorify God and thus be an adverse witness of ownership! When one truly loves God they are desperate to please Him and glorify Him in all they do. They do not see just how much they can compromise with the world and how many things they can also do that the world does that would declare them to still be unregenerate.

Listen to this sermon and see what you think: SermonAudio.com - The Function Of The Curch


----------



## SRoper

christiana said:


> Did you read the article on MOdesty by Mary Mohler? She declares boundaries clearly!!



I have read it. I don't think anyone has a problem with boundaries, but we do have a problem with declaring our own boundaries as God's boundaries. To take the example you gave, I find myself in disagreement with Mary Mohler's standards on several points. If I remember, she forbids halter tops and strapless tops, while I don't have a problem with such attire. On the other hand, she thinks shorts and swimsuits are acceptable, but I think these tend towards indecency. Who is right?


----------



## ~~Susita~~

*Just a little food for thought.*

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're not actually inhaling the smoke when smoking a cigar, are you? Unless done by accident. I don't think there's anything wrong with smoking a cigar, if you enjoy the taste, that's fine. But smoking cigarettes is a whole different ball game, because they do damage the lungs. I firmly believe we should do our best to maintain the bodies the Lord saw fit to bless us with. That said, we were examining slides in the lab the other day (epithelial tissues), and I got to see a healthy lung vs. a smoker's lung. Pretty nasty. When you're smoking a cigarette, that's basically destroying the cells in the epithelial layer so mitosis (cell reproduction) is having to increase to keep up with what you are destroying. Cells are replicating at a much faster rate to repair the damage, and cancer is a result of too many cells. When going through chemotherapy/radiation, they are basically destroying excess cells. I thought I heard something about the epithelial layer in the stomach replacing itself every few days, so that's quite a thought. After all the other junk we eat/drink, why add more and make our bodies work harder to maintain homeostasis, folks? o.0 

I'm still not too fond of the idea of injecting ink into my skin and killing off more cells in the process when we do that just by brushing up against a door (thank God for His master design of our body). It could be considered a form of mutilation since the body has to heal itself when you just decided to drag a foreign object around in your skin.  That's kinda gross, in my opinion.

Here's some food for thought, kinda boring if you don't like science-related stuff. But this really freaked me out when we were talking about "desmosomes" (Prevent cells from being pulled apart when they're subjected to stress) - you can pinch a piece of skin on your arm and hang the weight of your whole arm from that pinch because of them. Here's a picture. Those are two cells and the forks are the desmosomes holding them together. http://biodidac.bio.uottawa.ca/ftp/BIODIDAC/Zoo/Cell/diagbw/cell023b.gif I just thought it was freaky because they're so tiny, yet they would support such weight. Makes me want to be more careful with the body God has given me.


----------



## RamistThomist

Revelation 19: 16

6On his robe and on _his thigh he has this name_ *written*:
KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

Sounds like a tatoo.


----------



## Jim Johnston

~~Susita~~ said:


> I'm still not too fond of the idea of injecting ink into my skin and killing off more cells in the process when we do that just by brushing up against a door (thank God for His master design of our body). It could be considered a form of mutilation since the body has to heal itself when you just decided to drag a foreign object around in your skin.  That's kinda gross, in my opinion.
> [/COLOR]



Your skin must repair itself when you pierce your ears too. And, when you work out, you tear your muscles and so they must repair themselves.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

J.G. Vos, _The Bible Doctrine of the Separated Life_
Brian Schwertley, _Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience_


----------



## SRoper

~~Susita~~ said:


> I'm still not too fond of the idea of injecting ink into my skin and killing off more cells in the process when we do that just by brushing up against a door (thank God for His master design of our body). It could be considered a form of mutilation since the body has to heal itself when you just decided to drag a foreign object around in your skin.  That's kinda gross, in my opinion.



Having second thoughts about getting the rampant lion tattoo?


----------



## ~~Susita~~

SRoper said:


> ~~Susita~~ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still not too fond of the idea of injecting ink into my skin and killing off more cells in the process when we do that just by brushing up against a door (thank God for His master design of our body). It could be considered a form of mutilation since the body has to heal itself when you just decided to drag a foreign object around in your skin.  That's kinda gross, in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having second thoughts about getting the rampant lion tattoo?
Click to expand...


Never had to


----------



## RamistThomist

~~Susita~~ said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~~Susita~~ said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still not too fond of the idea of injecting ink into my skin and killing off more cells in the process when we do that just by brushing up against a door (thank God for His master design of our body). It could be considered a form of mutilation since the body has to heal itself when you just decided to drag a foreign object around in your skin.  That's kinda gross, in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having second thoughts about getting the rampant lion tattoo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never had to
Click to expand...


To answer your question about the cigars. No, you don't inhale, but the back of your throat does get really warm. Your lips are in contact with the tobacco, and to some degree, your throat. Much smaller danger than cigarettes.


----------



## christiana

Spear Dane said:


> Revelation 19: 16
> 
> 6On his robe and on _his thigh he has this name_ *written*:
> KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
> 
> Sounds like a tatoo.



Blasphemous!!


----------



## RamistThomist

christiana said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Revelation 19: 16
> 
> 6On his robe and on _his thigh he has this name_ *written*:
> KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
> 
> Sounds like a tatoo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blasphemous!!
Click to expand...


I didn't make it up. Anyway, I don't think Christ cut himself for the dead, ala the prohibition in Leviticus.

But on the other hand, the name might not have been written in ink, so it's probably okay.


----------



## Gesetveemet

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Gesetveemet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are tattoos unbiblical? Displeasing to God? . . . Any thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The motive for getting a tattoo is to imitate current fashions of the world. It is also a returning to pagan practices of doing to our bodies what WE want. So yes tattoos are unbiblical and displeasing to God.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




The Institutes of Biblical Law by Rousas John Rushdoony 
The Sixth commandment pg. 223 




> *Rousas John Rushdoony said: *The personal application includes markings, cuttings, and tattoos of the body, for the body must be used under God’s law, and all such acts are forbidden in the law, whether for morning, as religious marks, or for ornamental or other uses (Lev. 19:28 21:5). Tattooing was practiced religiously to indicate that one adhered to or belonged to a god; it also indicated that a man was a slave, that he belonged to a lord or owner. The believer, as a free man in Christ, indicates Christ’s lordship by obedience, not by servile markings: the body is kept holy and clean unto the Lord. The persistence of a mark of slavery among men is indicative of man’s perversity.




William 




.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Gesetveemet said:


> CarolinaCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gesetveemet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The motive for getting a tattoo is to imitate current fashions of the world. It is also a returning to pagan practices of doing to our bodies what WE want. So yes tattoos are unbiblical and displeasing to God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Institutes of Biblical Law by Rousas John Rushdoony
> The Sixth commandment pg. 223
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Rousas John Rushdoony said: *The personal application includes markings, cuttings, and tattoos of the body, for the body must be used under God’s law, and all such acts are forbidden in the law, whether for morning, as religious marks, or for ornamental or other uses (Lev. 19:28 21:5). Tattooing was practiced religiously to indicate that one adhered to or belonged to a god; it also indicated that a man was a slave, that he belonged to a lord or owner. The believer, as a free man in Christ, indicates Christ’s lordship by obedience, not by servile markings: the body is kept holy and clean unto the Lord. The persistence of a mark of slavery among men is indicative of man’s perversity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> William
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...



So, he skips over "5'They shall not make any baldness on their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards," and ONLY applies "nor make any cuts in their flesh." Hmm.. the pick and choose method. 

If you apply the last part, YOU MUST apply the first part. So, ALL bald and smoothed faced men are a bunch of sinners... what a thought.


----------



## VictorBravo

Andrew P.C. said:


> So, he skips over "5'They shall not make any baldness on their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards," and ONLY applies "nor make any cuts in their flesh." Hmm.. the pick and choose method.
> 
> If you apply the last part, YOU MUST apply the first part. So, ALL bald and smoothed faced men are a bunch of sinners... what a thought.



Hey, leave us natural baldies out of it! 

"And the man whose hair is fallen off his head, he is bald; yet is he clean." Lev 13:40


----------



## Andrew P.C.

victorbravo said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, he skips over "5'They shall not make any baldness on their heads, nor shave off the edges of their beards," and ONLY applies "nor make any cuts in their flesh." Hmm.. the pick and choose method.
> 
> If you apply the last part, YOU MUST apply the first part. So, ALL bald and smoothed faced men are a bunch of sinners... what a thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, leave us natural baldies out of it!
> 
> "And the man whose hair is fallen off his head, he is bald; yet is he clean." Lev 13:40
Click to expand...


This would be a referrence to "unnatural" baldies. Them who are balding but just go ahead and speed it up by shaving it....


----------



## wsw201

sirhicks said:


> The relatively recent (recent in the context of smoking's existence) hype and propaganda from the Government against smoking is due to two primary motivating factors: Exapnsion of government conrtol and $$$$$ for the private entities producing the studies which "prove" the government's propaganda.


----------



## Archlute

If we want to avoid a debate about externals only I would ask what the _motives_ are for the one "getting inked", for surely the motive is the greatest indicator of the suitability of the practice for the Christian in an area where there is not clear condemnation in Scripture. I would say that a desire to, if I may be free to use the language of high school, "look cool" in the eyes of the world (even by way of a Christian symbol such as a cross) is the primary, if largely unspoken, motive for anybody getting a tattoo. That doesn't sound to me like giving God his glory, nor is it a more effective avenue for witness than speaking the word of the Gospel to your inked up friends in due season. The latter is not only more effective, but it is also much more difficult.



One poster summed up the unfortunate attitude of many Christians on this issue quite well, as also that of many high schoolers, when he wrote:



SRoper said:


> And what's wrong with doing *what I want to do*?



The last time I checked, this was indeed an attitude conflicting with the tenor of Christian thought and life as found in the apostolic writings, and one in which we should not glory (for then we glory in our self-indulgence). Now if our regenerate souls are doing what we want to do, because we find that it is what God wants us to do out of love for Him, our neighbor, and the Gospel, then go for it. However, you would be hard pressed to convince me that the Holy Spirit is that interested in including a self-glorifying practice, such as tattooing one's body, in Paul's statement that we should "walk in the Spirit, and so not fulfill the desires of the flesh". Granted, that passage is addressing internal issues of the heart and of spiritual fruit, but can one really separate the act of tattooing from an internal motive?

Luther said that even the simple tasks of cutting of our hair and shaving our beards should be done out of love and service to our neighbor. I don't know how many of my neighbors would be highly edified if I came home with a tattoo of a cross on my left cheek (you pick which one).


----------



## Dr Mike Kear

Forgive me if I'm out of line for saying this, but is seems to me that when issues like these are discussed, the main problem is that there is one group who wants to take part of the levitical law and impose it on others while being very discriminate about how they appliy that same law to themselves. What I mean is that if we are to appeal to the law, then let's be consistent about it. We shouldn't just pick the parts that match our pet peeves and disregard the parts we don't like. 

Personally, I think that believers are delivered from the levitical law and are now operating under the law of Christ. Which means I can wear a blended fabric jacket and I don't have to put my wife out of the house once a month and I don't have to stone my neighbor for not keeping sabbath, etc.

Just my opinion. I've been wrong before.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dr Mike Kear said:


> I don't have to stone my neighbor for not keeping sabbath, etc.
> 
> Just my opinion. I've been wrong before.



Don't want to derail the discussion, but you wouldn't have done that as an individual Israelite. Individuals and families did not have the jurisdiction for the execution of capital crimes, save manslaughter.


----------



## Dr Mike Kear

Spear Dane said:


> Don't want to derail the discussion, but you wouldn't have done that as an individual Israelite. Individuals and families did not have the jurisdiction for the execution of capital crimes, save manslaughter.



True that. I just tossed out the first thing that popped into my mind. Perhaps I should have said something about the way I cut my hair (what's left of it) or how I regularly partake of filthy, filthy swine.


----------



## calgal

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> christiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> quote:
> 
> 
> 
> It only sounds pious to those who don't think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that wasnt very nice!
> 
> If we follow Rom 12:1,2 then there must obviously be great distinctive differences between the world and the christian. Are we too see how much of what they do is permissible for us; seeing how close to the edge we can live! Why do christians feel a need to 'eat' their own and declare them of a lesser 'quality' of christian if they choose to live more piously, choosing to grow ever closer to the Lord, remain separate from the world, perhaps being an intercessor. Why does that make them bait for other christians to criticize? Do you see their honest desires for such to be pharisaical or what? Hmmmm
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, there does need to be a big difference between the world and the Christian. But it _is_ the Pharisees who take that to mean something completely external. They always have and they still do. It _isn't_ pious to add to God's commandments. We _don't_ become "closer to the Lord" by following rules we make up for ourselves in order to feel holier.
> 
> But as Paul M., I too do not have a problem with someone not wanting to get a tattoo or smoke. What I have a problem with is the casting of burdensome extra-biblical commandments onto the consciences of other Christians in order to make them conform to some individual's extra-biblical standard of holiness.
Click to expand...


 Presence or absence of body art does not make someone any more or less of a Christian. It means they have a higher pain tolerance than I do.


----------



## SRoper

Archlute said:


> One poster summed up the unfortunate attitude of many Christians on this issue quite well, as also that of many high schoolers, when he wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what's wrong with doing *what I want to do*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last time I checked, this was indeed an attitude conflicting with the tenor of Christian thought and life as found in the apostolic writings, and one in which we should not glory (for then we glory in our self-indulgence). Now if our regenerate souls are doing what we want to do, because we find that it is what God wants us to do out of love for Him, our neighbor, and the Gospel, then go for it. However, you would be hard pressed to convince me that the Holy Spirit is that interested in including a self-glorifying practice, such as tattooing one's body, in Paul's statement that we should "walk in the Spirit, and so not fulfill the desires of the flesh". Granted, that passage is addressing internal issues of the heart and of spiritual fruit, but can one really separate the act of tattooing from an internal motive?
> 
> Luther said that even the simple tasks of cutting of our hair and shaving our beards should be done out of love and service to our neighbor. I don't know how many of my neighbors would be highly edified if I came home with a tattoo of a cross on my left cheek (you pick which one).
Click to expand...


Now see that's exactly what I was trying to draw out. There is nothing wrong with doing what we want as long as what we want is good. The argument I was responding to assumed that what we want and what God wants are always in opposition, yet Augustine says "Love God and do what you will."


----------



## kbergsing

I have one on my shoulder. It's a matter of personal choice. I really don't think it's "unbiblical".


----------



## caddy

*** chuckling ****




blhowes said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are tattoos unbiblical? Displeasing to God? How about Cigarette smoking?
> 
> Since I've been raised in a SBC church, I was always taught these are sinful. Any thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you know why nobody's responded to your post yet,? They're outside taking a cigarette break. They should be back soon.
Click to expand...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dr Mike Kear said:


> Forgive me if I'm out of line for saying this, but is seems to me that when issues like these are discussed, the main problem is that there is one group who wants to take part of the levitical law and impose it on others while being very discriminate about how they appliy that same law to themselves. What I mean is that if we are to appeal to the law, then let's be consistent about it. We shouldn't just pick the parts that match our pet peeves and disregard the parts we don't like.
> 
> Personally, I think that believers are delivered from the levitical law and are now operating under the law of Christ. Which means I can wear a blended fabric jacket and I don't have to put my wife out of the house once a month and I don't have to stone my neighbor for not keeping sabbath, etc.
> 
> Just my opinion. I've been wrong before.




What do you think about the distinction of moral law Dr.?


----------



## Dr Mike Kear

CredoCovenanter said:


> What do you think about the distinction of moral law Dr.?



I'm not sure what you mean by _distinction_. If you are asking me whether I think the moral law should be lumped in with the levitical law or not, my response would be no. In reference to the ceremonial law contrasted with the moral law, I agree with the WCF, Chapter XIX. I also think Calvin is right on when he discusses the three uses of the law in the _Institutes_, Book 2, Chapter 7. The moral law, being the law of Christ, is written on our hearts, whereas the _ceremonial laws are now abrogated_ (WCF).


----------



## RamistThomist

One of the problems with appealing to the distinctions in the laws is sometimes it is hard to tell which law it is? Is it ceremonial, moral or civil? They are not always that clear.


----------



## RamistThomist

And to make matters worse, the moral law does not simply equal the Ten Commandments, rather it is a summary of the ten commandments. So which laws is it summarizing? We can't just say, the moral laws. For then we would be saying the moral law is a summary of the moral law, which isn't telling us much.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I agree with Calvin also but I have seen others place a higher emphasis on the law of Christ than on the law pointed to in the decalogue. And just to be honest I don't see much of a difference if there is any. I do know some who wish to make a difference between them. That is another issue for another thread though. 

In verse 29 and 30 it seems to be Moral law. Specifically the first tablet. In verse 28 of Leviticus 19 it also seems moral. IN fact chapter 19 seems to be packed full of moral teaching. I am not so sure that 'marking the skin' which is mentioned later is tied just to the part of the passage 'for the dead' though. There seems to be an additional general issue here. (In other words... in light of this let me add this by saying don't do any kind of marking for any reason.) And in my humble opinion there is a level of carnality that pervades most of the guys who tattoo themselves. But I aint always correct.

Anyways... Here is what Keil and Deliltzsch say.


> Lev_19:28
> “Ye shall not make cuttings on your flesh (body) on account of a soul, i.e., a dead person (נפשׁ = מת נפשׁ, Lev_21:11; Num_6:6, or מת, Deu_14:1; so again in Lev_22:4; Num_5:2; Num_9:6-7, Num_9:10), nor make engraven (or branded) writing upon yourselves.” Two prohibitions of an unnatural disfigurement of the body. The first refers to passionate outbursts of mourning, common among the excitable nations of the East, particularly in the southern parts, and to the custom of scratching the arms, hands, and face (Deu_14:1), which is said to have prevailed among the Babylonians and Armenians (Cyrop. iii. 1, 13, iii. 3, 67), the Scythians (Herod. 4, 71), and even the ancient Romans (cf. M. Geier de Ebraeor. luctu, c. 10), and to be still practised by the Arabs (Arvieux Beduinen, p. 153), the Persians (Morier Zweite Reise, p. 189), and the Abyssinians of the present day, and which apparently held its ground among the Israelites notwithstanding the prohibition (cf. Jer_16:6; Jer_41:5; Jer_47:5), - as well as to the custom, which is also forbidden in Lev_21:5 and Deu_14:1, of cutting off the hair of the head and beard (cf. Isa_3:24; Isa_22:12; Micah. Lev_1:16; Amo_8:10; Eze_7:18). It cannot be inferred from the words of Plutarch, quoted by Spencer, δοκοῦντες χαρίζεσθαι τοῖς τετελευκηκόσιν, that the heathen associated with this custom the idea of making an expiation to the dead. The prohibition of קעקע כּתבת, scriptio stigmatis, writing corroded or branded (see Ges. thes. pp. 1207-8), i.e., of tattooing, - a custom not only very common among the savage tribes, but still met with in Arabia (Arvieux Beduinen, p. 155; Burckhardt Beduinen, pp. 40, 41) and in Egypt among both men and women of the lower orders (Lane, Manners and Customs i. pp. 25, 35, iii. p. 169), - had no reference to idolatrous usages, but was intended to inculcate upon the Israelites a proper reverence for God's creation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Preach

I think the following was a verbatim interaction. Dwight L. Moody walked into C.H. Spurgeon's study and observed the "Prince of preachers" smoking a cigar. Moody wagged his finger at Spurgeon and said: "How can you call yourself a man of God?", to which the prince poked his finger into Moody's belly and asked: "How can you call yourself a man of God?"


----------



## Archlute

SRoper said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> One poster summed up the unfortunate attitude of many Christians on this issue quite well, as also that of many high schoolers, when he wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what's wrong with doing *what I want to do*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last time I checked, this was indeed an attitude conflicting with the tenor of Christian thought and life as found in the apostolic writings, and one in which we should not glory (for then we glory in our self-indulgence). Now if our regenerate souls are doing what we want to do, because we find that it is what God wants us to do out of love for Him, our neighbor, and the Gospel, then go for it. However, you would be hard pressed to convince me that the Holy Spirit is that interested in including a self-glorifying practice, such as tattooing one's body, in Paul's statement that we should "walk in the Spirit, and so not fulfill the desires of the flesh". Granted, that passage is addressing internal issues of the heart and of spiritual fruit, but can one really separate the act of tattooing from an internal motive?
> 
> Luther said that even the simple tasks of cutting of our hair and shaving our beards should be done out of love and service to our neighbor. I don't know how many of my neighbors would be highly edified if I came home with a tattoo of a cross on my left cheek (you pick which one).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now see that's exactly what I was trying to draw out. There is nothing wrong with doing what we want as long as what we want is good. The argument I was responding to assumed that what we want and what God wants are always in opposition, yet Augustine says "Love God and do what you will."
Click to expand...


My apologies for misunderstanding your emphasis, Scott. We are in agreement


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Preach said:


> I think the following was a verbatim interaction. Dwight L. Moody walked into C.H. Spurgeon's study and observed the "Prince of preachers" smoking a cigar. Moody wagged his finger at Spurgeon and said: "How can you call yourself a man of God?", to which the prince poked his finger into Moody's belly and asked: "How can you call yourself a man of God?"



I have heard similar renderings of the account. And it is a moot response to a dumb question. BTW, I have quit smoking my pipe about a month ago. But I wouldn't call another man an ungodly man for smoking. I can't say I was doing it of faith. And it is a carnal desire for me. I like Stonewall Jackson like it to much. I may imbibe ever so once in a while but I was coughing because of it. So I am obstaining for reasons like his I believe.


----------



## LockTheDeadbolt

Archlute said:


> If we want to avoid a debate about externals only I would ask what the _motives_ are for the one "getting inked", for surely the motive is the greatest indicator of the suitability of the practice for the Christian in an area where there is not clear condemnation in Scripture. *I would say that a desire to, if I may be free to use the language of high school, "look cool" in the eyes of the world (even by way of a Christian symbol such as a cross) is the primary, if largely unspoken, motive for anybody getting a tattoo.* That doesn't sound to me like giving God his glory, nor is it a more effective avenue for witness than speaking the word of the Gospel to your inked up friends in due season. The latter is not only more effective, but it is also much more difficult.



The primary spoken and unspoken purpose of my tattoo of Rom. 8:13 in Greek script was to have a constant reminder of all that I learned from the implications of that verse in context (which was well-illumined by John Owen's _The Mortification of Sin_). That Scripture was used by the Holy Spirit to "mortify" several deeply rooted sins in my young Christian life, and the tattoo has been a visceral reminder of that in times of temptation. 

It also gave me the opportunity to explain the verse in the Bible study we had in the "back room" of the tattoo parlor (which I would have done with or without the ink). Also, I can't say how many opportunities for evangelism have _presented themselves_, above and beyond the opportunities I've sought in due season.

Anyway, Christian tats are way better than Christian t-shirts.  I love that stupid banana.

BTW, nice avatar. Ranger?


----------



## BobVigneault

LockTheDeadbolt said:


> Anyway, Christian tats are way better than Christian t-shirts.



In my young Christian life I wore a bunch of 'christian' t-shirts. As I matured and realized how silly they were I took them off and chucked them. "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child."

Cost for removing my t-shirts = nothing.
Cost of removing saggy, baggy Demon Hunter tat = between thousands and 'you don't wanna know'.

"When I became a man, I gave up childish ways."


----------



## LockTheDeadbolt

BobVigneault said:


> Cost of removing saggy, baggy Demon Hunter tat = between thousands and 'you don't wanna know'.



You have a Demon Hunter tat? 

Has anybody who keeps bringing up tattoo removal actually seen a "removed" tat? Most of the time it looks like an inkless tattoo-shaped scar or a brand. 

Also, one of the main reasons tattoo removal has become a big deal has to do with successful gang recidivism programs, people attempting to leave gang life, and the prevalence of perceived "discrimination" in broader society against those with gang tats, former gang members or not. Illinois has a "Gang Tattoo Removal Act" on the books and a Task Force assigned to study its effectiveness. (FYI, I'm no gangsta. I've just worked in the Dept. of Corrections in a couple states, which has illumined some of the aspects of gang culture and society's response for me.)


----------



## tdowns

*Removed tattoos.....*

Here are some pics of removed tats....

Dr. TATTOFF Laser Tattoo Removal Experts of Los Angeles

Looks pretty good to me.

But I bet it's a pretty penny, and painful....I'd say if your 30 plus, do what you want, under that....please wait, so sad to see these young kids now days with mutilated ears, noses, lips, tattooed necks.....sad, sad, sad.


----------



## Reformed Baptist

Cigs are bad, but Cigars are better.


----------



## tdowns

*But Pipes are best!*

The Pipe is most certainly the best! In moderation of course, or you'll get a cough and have to quit!


----------



## jbergsing

tdowns007 said:


> But I bet it's a pretty penny, and painful....I'd say if your 30 plus, do what you want, under that....please wait, so sad to see these young kids now days with mutilated ears, noses, lips, tattooed necks.....sad, sad, sad.


Don't forget tongues! What's with people getting their tongues forked anyway? Gross...

Personally I don't have a tattoo, nor am I planning on getting one but I don't make the same connection with Romans 12 as some. I also don't see this as as a "justificational" issue, but a matter of personal taste. Although there does seem to be a "fad" in getting a tattoo throughout society today, most people (believer's and non-believers alike) still scorn at those who choose to cover themselves with tattoos, albeit, grotesquely. And I doubt that will ever change.


----------



## Archlute

LockTheDeadbolt said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we want to avoid a debate about externals only I would ask what the _motives_ are for the one "getting inked", for surely the motive is the greatest indicator of the suitability of the practice for the Christian in an area where there is not clear condemnation in Scripture. *I would say that a desire to, if I may be free to use the language of high school, "look cool" in the eyes of the world (even by way of a Christian symbol such as a cross) is the primary, if largely unspoken, motive for anybody getting a tattoo.* That doesn't sound to me like giving God his glory, nor is it a more effective avenue for witness than speaking the word of the Gospel to your inked up friends in due season. The latter is not only more effective, but it is also much more difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The primary spoken and unspoken purpose of my tattoo of Rom. 8:13 in Greek script was to have a constant reminder of all that I learned from the implications of that verse in context (which was well-illumined by John Owen's _The Mortification of Sin_). That Scripture was used by the Holy Spirit to "mortify" several deeply rooted sins in my young Christian life, and the tattoo has been a visceral reminder of that in times of temptation.
> 
> It also gave me the opportunity to explain the verse in the Bible study we had in the "back room" of the tattoo parlor (which I would have done with or without the ink). Also, I can't say how many opportunities for evangelism have _presented themselves_, above and beyond the opportunities I've sought in due season.
Click to expand...


Those sound like noble motives to me, I am glad to hear that you've been able to put it to use for the work of the kingdom.



> BTW, nice avatar. Ranger?



"Hey, Hey, Noriega, you're gonna die;
Black Berets are gonna fill the sky..."

C co. 3rd Ranger Battalion '93-'95, which was several years after the above referenced Invasion of Panama, and a good couple of years before the entire U.S. Army swiped the Regimental black beret in order to feel special about themselves...  (although tan doesn't actually look that bad).


----------



## JollySpectre9

Why must we continue to follow the route of legalism! I have had the opportunity to do a few sunday school classes in lue of, and when I did the book of Galations, it was amazing how freeing it is to LIVE in Christ. We don't have to go back to the LAW!!! There are people so ready to call something sin that the Bible doesn't, so the legalist says this when it doesn't fit into his personal way of thinking, or goes against the taboos created by Denominational Traditionalism. The legalist needs to always remember the three fingers that are pointing back at himself. Now, I must also say that if you are mentioning cigarette smoking, you must honestly think whether you are addicted or not. It is common knowledge that cigarettes are highly addictive. Now something like a cigar or a pipe are different in that they don't have the the "addictive chemicals that make you crave them fortnightly!" I like what one person wrote about the convictions of doctrine. We should be very careful when we take the route of the Pharisee!!!


----------



## BobVigneault

So is it a sin or not for a man to deny the Trinity. The Bible doesn't say it's a sin to deny the Trinity. Am I a legalist for insisting that it IS a sin to deny the Trinity even though the Bible doesn't specifically say, "Don't deny the Trinity'?

Hey look at that, I DO have three fingers pointing back at me. Is that a good reason for why I shouldn't pass judgment on certain behaviors? I would like to say that p0rnography is evil and it's a sin to be involved in it but DANG IT, I've got 3 fingers pointing back at me. What am I to do?

I apologize for my sarcasm brother, I'm just trying to make a point as briefly as possible. 




JollySpectre9 said:


> .....There are people so ready to call something sin that the Bible doesn't, so the legalist says this when it doesn't fit into his personal way of thinking, or goes against the taboos created by Denominational Traditionalism. The legalist needs to always remember the three fingers that are pointing back at himself.


----------



## JollySpectre9

Ouch, I am swimming with the sharks, and I am an intellectual guppy! I guess I just have a problem with the whole blanket statement of conformity with the world... as being the means by which to call everything bad. I guess I got excited about posting. Thank you brother for bringing back down to earth!


----------



## BobVigneault

Keep posting Dustin. I was in a hurry this morning when I typed that. It was meant to provoke thought in general, I didn't mean for it to feel like a personal spanking, (except with a mink glove of course). I'm so glad you're here and that you are posting. Most of all, thank you for your service to our country. I am the guppy sir.


----------



## etexas

BobVigneault said:


> Keep posting Dustin. I was in a hurry this morning when I typed that. It was meant to provoke thought in general, I didn't mean for it to feel like a personal spanking, (except with a mink glove of course). I'm so glad you're here and that you are posting. Most of all, thank you for your service to our country. I am the guppy sir.


Bob....where did you get your mink glove????


----------



## Megaloo

BobVigneault said:


> Keep posting Dustin. I was in a hurry this morning when I typed that. It was meant to provoke thought in general, I didn't mean for it to feel like a personal spanking, (except with a mink glove of course). I'm so glad you're here and that you are posting. Most of all, thank you for your service to our country. I am the guppy sir.




No, no, no, Bob....he is right...he is a guppy.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

joshua said:


> The relatively recent (recent in the context of smoking's existence) hype and propaganda from the Government against smoking is due to two primary motivating factors: Exapnsion of government conrtol and $$$$$ for the private entities producing the studies which "prove" the government's propaganda.


There is an inverse effect on life long smokers and lung disease, cancer and tuberculosis compared to those who don't pick up the habit.
Again all in moderation, like alcohol, caffeine or whatever legal drug you chose to enjoy on occasion it is best it remains in regimented moderation and not in gluttonous portions. 

My Granddaddy is dead, a product of throat cancer that became lung cancer and his life long affection for cigars may not have been the chief culprit but it certainly didn't help.


----------



## JollySpectre9

Meghan, thanks for the cool ?AVATAR? What is that anyway, isn't that some cartoon about a guy that can bend the wind or something? Oh well, Bob, thanks, it is definitely apparent that words written here have a real impact. I am not around as many reformed people as I would wish to be here in Japan. The Lieno's and us, the Thomas family, are about it in our church. So it is nice to come here and have good honest coversations. As far as this thread goes, would you say that computer games are in the same category. I have finally come to the point in my life where I have the strength, OK, Christ is giving me the strength, to overcome playing those waste of time computer games. Now I know that you have not heard from me much since I have joined, but when I would log on to the computer, instead of have the opportunity for good reformed Christian conversation, I would instead fire up Civilization IV. Sure that game in and of its self isn't bad, but the reason of me needing it to intertain myself for hours on in would definitely be wrong. It is what controls you. So does the need for cigarettes overcome your ability to maitain your health, or is your conscience bothered by it. I think it is a scary thing to realize that if I am hardening my heart to the conviction of the Holy Spirit, then I am subject to either harsh condemnation from God, or even worse, be like some people who wish to even have their conscience bothered again because they have so suppressed the Spirit. I am sure that the mink glove will come out on this one, I just wonder if there is going to be a lead weight in it!!!


----------



## Pergamum

joshua said:


> The relatively recent (recent in the context of smoking's existence) hype and propaganda from the Government against smoking is due to two primary motivating factors: Exapnsion of government conrtol and $$$$$ for the private entities producing the studies which "prove" the government's propaganda.



Isn't the whole crazy "fad"of smoking itself fairly recent? 


About 500 years old or less, right (unless my hypothesis is true and smoking killed off the dinosaurs)...



Also, are you saying that the studies that say smoking is unhealthy are all gov't propaganda? Sounds conspiratorial to me? Even common sense says that smoking more than maybe 3 cigs per day inhibits your lung capacity.




About tattoing: People in the 3rd World cut themselves for the dead. ONe tribe here for instnace used to cut off a pinky for an immediate family member dying. This seems to be more in line with LEviticus than our Western tattoes as body art. It is not for the dead, it is art (good or bad...but art).


----------



## Pergamum

Ha! JollySPectre...I just noticed your avatar! Spectres are anything but jolly!


----------



## etexas

joshua said:


> Insofar as the Hype and Propaganda comment, I stand by it. Why? Because the government is not _truly_ interested in the health of the people. They are only interested in sucking more money from the people and wielding more power over the people.
> 
> As for the _morality_ of it, a fitting excerpt from Vos' worked linked above by Andrew:
> 
> 
> 
> *6. *_*A Matter Must Be Regarded As Indifferent In Itself Until Proved Sinful By Scripture*_*.* The question may be raised, How are we to decide whether or not a particular matter belongs in the category of things indifferent? In this, as in all other questions of faith and conduct, the Word of God must be our chart and compass. A matter must be regarded as indifferent until proved to be sinful, not _vice versa_. A man is regarded as innocent until proved guilty. Nothing could be more false and dangerous than the contention of some religious teachers that a matter must be regarded as sinful until proved to be indifferent. When there is any doubt that the matter is sinful in itself, it must be left to the individual conscience. If the teaching of Scripture about a particular matter appears to be doubtful or obscure, or even seems to be contradictory, this is all the more reason for church assemblies _not_ to make authoritative pronouncements or laws about such a matter. What God has clearly revealed, let the church confidently enforce. What God has not clearly revealed, let the church not presume to determine. God grant that we may be preserved from trying to have a clearer standard than the Bible, or a more complete set of moral laws than that contained in the Word of God!
> 
> Beyond question a great deal of the present insistence on the obligation to live what is called the separated life proceeds from misunderstanding of the Scripture passages dealing with the use of things indifferent. When groups of earnest Christians demand separation from particular things, in themselves indifferent, as the condition of Christian fellowship, they set up a false and unwarranted standard of fellowship, and become guilty of presumption by judging their brethren in those things in which Christ has left them free under God.
> 
> *V. The Separated Life and the Sufficiency of Scripture*
> 
> The principle of the sufficiency of Scripture as the standard of faith and conduct is involved in the problem of the separated life. Separation is sometimes demanded from things which Scripture does not declare or imply to be sinful. Sometimes the attempt is made to show that some of these things or practices are sinful by bringing in a secondary authority, such as experience, physical science, the so-called Christian consciousness. Experience or science may show good reasons for abstaining from certain acts or habits, but experience or science can never of itself be binding on the conscience of man.
> 
> Moreover, those who wish to introduce science as an additional authority always speak as if it were a very simple matter to ascertain what science has to say on any particular question. They always speak as if somewhere there were a sort of scientific pope who could utter _ex cathedra_ the final, united, unquestionable voice of science. They seem to presuppose that the voice of science can be heard, speaking with authoritative accents, by simply consulting a few volumes in the public library. The truth is, however, that “science” is an abstraction. There is in the world today no such thing as the voice of science; there are only the voices of a multitude of scientists, and they are anything but agreed among themselves. Now who is to decide which of these many voices is to be accepted as the authoritative voice of science? One scientist, a professor in a great university, states that years of research have failed to demonstrate that a certain practice shortens life. Another scientist, of equal scientific standing, maintains the contrary position. Who is to decide which represents the authoritative voice of “science”? All too often those who wish to place science alongside of Scripture as a standard of faith and conduct wish at the same time to be the judges of what is science; those who hold certain views they regard as scientists; all others they reject as being prejudiced or otherwise untrustworthy. Can any pope or church assembly decide just what kinds of science — the opinions of just which scientists — are authoritative and therefore, along with Scripture, binding on the conscience of man? No, in matters of science every person must decide for himself. And even if certain scientific theories are believed to be true, they cannot be binding on the conscience. We must beware of the sin mentioned in the Larger Catechism, no. 105, of “making men the lords of our faith and conscience.” _All human authority, however expert or learned, is fallible, and therefore cannot bind the conscience._ Science may show that certain things are _harmful to the body_, but science can never show that anything is _sinful_. Scripture alone can show that anything, for example a particular course of conduct, is sinful. It is true that the light of nature, or the moral law written on the heart of man (Rom 2:14-15), shows that certain acts, such as murder, are wrong; but the light of nature does not tell us anything about morality _in addition_ to what is revealed in Scripture; Scripture is a fuller revelation than natural revelation and includes all of the latter and much besides; therefore when Scripture does not declare or imply that a certain practice is sinful, we cannot turn from Scripture to natural revelation for fuller light on the matter. (In this connection it may be remarked that the modernist notion that all human knowledge and science is a divine revelation in the same sense that Scripture is a divine revelation, is utterly false and destructive. Natural revelation is a provision of God by which the heathen, who do not have the light of Scripture, may know something of His power, divinity and moral law. It is insufficient for salvation, but leaves men without excuse and provides a standard by which those who lived and died without the light of special revelation shall be judged. Rom. 1:18-20; 2:12-16.)
> 
> Scripture of course teaches that it is ordinarily the duty of Christians to abstain from what is harmful to the body (this is not always the duty of Christians, for there may be circumstances when loyalty to Christ requires that our own physical welfare be disregarded, or even that, rather than deny the Lord, we suffer martyrdom and allow the body to be entirely destroyed); the sixth commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” is stated by the Shorter Catechism to forbid “the taking of our own life, or the life of our neighbor, unjustly, or whatsoever tendeth thereunto” (no. 69). This commandment is binding on every man, and the interpretation of it given in the Catechism is doubtless the correct one. It thus becomes binding on the conscience of the Christian to abstain from that which tends toward the unjust destruction of his own life, or that of his neighbor, that is, from that which is harmful to the body. But we should note that the decision whether a particular act is _harmful_ must be made by the individual concerned. Science is never infallible; it cannot bind the conscience; _therefore the individual Christian must judge of the statements of science, and the statements of science must not judge the Christian_. To deny this means to make science, instead of God, the Lord of the conscience. No alleged “findings” of science can be formulated into an authoritative list of harmful things or acts. The relation between the sufficiency of Scripture as the standard of faith and conduct and the problem of the separated life must be summarized as follows:
> 
> The Christian is required by God to separate from what is sinful.
> Scripture alone can demonstrate that a given course of conduct is sinful.
> Natural revelation cannot be regarded as a fuller revelation than Scripture, or as coordinate with Scripture in any sense whatever.
> It is possible that science or experience may show that certain conduct is harmful.
> Science or experience can never show that anything is sinful.
> Scripture teaches that what is really harmful is ordinarily sinful.
> The decision whether science or experience shows that particular conduct is harmful must be made by the individual concerned, not by other persons.
> Church assemblies may not issue authoritative regulations based in whole or in part on any other standard than Scripture.
> To depart from these principles is to deny the sufficiency of Scripture as the standard of faith and conduct and to elevate experience or science to the position of an additional authority coordinate with Scripture. This may be illustrated as follows: Science, let us say, has demonstrated that in certain conditions the eating of large amounts of certain foods is harmful to the body; this does not prove that the use of those foods is sinful in itself; science, moreover, cannot tell precisely where lies the border line between harmless use and harmful use. Scripture requires abstinence from that which is harmful, but teaches that no material thing is sinful in itself (Rom. 14:4). In the very nature of the case the individual concerned must be the judge of the extent of legitimate use in such a case, so far as his conscience is concerned. Some may say that the individual’s physician is the proper judge in such a case but, even so, judgment is still left with the individual; he is free to follow or to reject his physician’s advice, and also free to change or dismiss his physician. For an ecclesiastical judicatory to assert that science declares the matters in question to be harmful, therefore they are under all circumstances sinful, amounts to denying the sufficiency of Scripture and making human science an additional, coordinate authority.
> 
> If a Christian suffering from some bodily pain, takes more aspirin than is good for him, he may by this do something which is harmful to the body; he may even be doing something which, though not sinful in itself, is in that particular instance a sin against God; but the fact that it is possible for a person to commit sin by excessive use of aspirin by no means warrants a church assembly in enacting a rule limiting or prohibiting the use of aspirin by church members; because the use of aspirin is in itself morally indifferent, in the nature of the case the extent of legitimate use is a matter between the person and his Lord. No third party can be admitted to determine the question, _so far as the morality of the matter is concerned_. A physician may give good advice concerning the care of the body and the proper dosage of medicines, but he has nothing to do with the consciences of his patients. No fellow Christian, no bishop, pope, or ecclesiastical assembly can step in and say: “So-and-so many grains of aspirin constitute a legitimate medicinal dose, provided you have so-and-so many degrees of headache; but at that precise point aspirin ceases to be morally indifferent and its use becomes sinful.”
> 
> Many persons today are ready to take the real or alleged “findings” of science (or rather of certain scientists) that certain material things or certain habits are harmful to the body, and on this basis alone to affirm confidently that those things or those habits are necessarily sinful in themselves. To do this is not only to fall into Gnostic error, but to repudiate the sufficiency of the Word of God as the standard of morality, and to make fallible, human knowledge an authoritative standard of conduct.
> 
> *VI. The Separated Life and the Nature and Extent of the Authority of the Christian Church*
> 
> In the formulation of creedal doctrine, the Christian church is strictly limited by Scripture. The church has the right to require of her officers and members assent to everything that can be shown to be taught or implied in Scripture, but the church does not have the right to add anything to what is contained in Scripture. The authority of the church is ministerial and declarative, not legislative; it is derived from Christ, not original in the church itself; it is no an absolute authority, but one limited and regulated by a definite revelation, the Scriptures. From these considerations it follows that the church has no right to go beyond Scripture and compile lists of specific things or acts, in themselves indifferent, which experience or science purport to show to be deleterious and which are therefore alleged to be wrong for the Christian to use or to do.
> 
> There are some Christian denominations which actually single out certain specific acts, in themselves indifferent, and require of church members abstinence from those things as a condition of membership. In some cases this requirement of abstinence is written into the denomination’s creedal doctrine, and members are not merely required to abstain from the particular things involved, but are also required to express their assent to the rightfulness of this requirement of abstinence. This tendency, which assumes various forms in various circles, is a very unhealthy one, for it tends to give people the notion that the church can, by its own authority, legislate for the lives of its members, and even go beyond Scripture in requiring of them abstinence from particular things which are in themselves indifferent.
> 
> Of course the church may and should require its members to abstain from everything that can be proved by Scripture to be sinful. The breach of such abstinence can be justly censured by ecclesiastical judicatories when the fact is proved. But the church has not authority to require abstinence from things indifferent. The church has no authority to usurp the functions of the individual Christian conscience and decide for her members concerning the use of things indifferent. For the church to censure her members for doing that which cannot be proved from Scripture, without the use of any additional authority, to be sinful, is to exceed the limits of legitimate church authority. At the point where a secondary becomes necessary, the matter automatically passes from the church to the court of the individual conscience, _precisely because God alone is Lord of the conscience, and human authority cannot bind the conscience_. Let all church courts beware of committing the sin which Spurgeon described as “violating the crown rights of God who alone is Lord of the consciences of men.”
> 
> Even though a church member may have committed an act which in the _opinion_ of the members of a judicatory would be sinful if committed in like circumstances by themselves, still the judicatory has no right to censure such a person unless it can be proved from Scripture that the act was sinful; just as in criminal law a jury may be of the opinion that a defendant has committed a wrong, but has no right to convict him unless the evidence proves that he has violated the law of the land. A church judicatory may not decide cases by opinion, but must decide according to the law and the evidence.
> 
> It will be seen to follow from the foregoing that just as the church has no authority to go beyond Scripture in legislating concerning particular things which are in themselves indifferent, so the church has no authority to censure her members for any use of things indifferent _unless that use can be proved to involve the violation of an express or implied command of Scripture_. It is not sufficient to show that a command of Scripture may have been violated, or that an act has been committed which might, under some circumstances, involve the violation of a command of Scripture. To be justly liable to ecclesiastical censure, a church member must be charged with a particular act, committed at a particular time and place, and concerning this act two things must be proved: (1) it must be proved that the act was actually committed by the person, and at the time and place specified in the charge; (2) it must be proved that the act, in the circumstances under which it was committed, involved the violation of a command of Scripture, that is, that it was sinful. Church discipline must always deal with _real offenses_, not with the legitimate and conscientious use of things indifferent. Its function is to remedy actual wrongs already committed, not to prevent the commission of wrongs by enforcing abstinence from things which are in themselves not sinful but indifferent.
Click to expand...

Preach it Josh!


----------



## Pergamum

JOsh:

YOu quote the following:

Science or experience can never show that anything is sinful. 



Why don;t you regularly drink Clorox then and encourage others to do the same?

Because you do not want to damage your temple. Science and reason show us that drinking Clorox is bad; therefore we refrain to be good stewards of our Gid given bodies. BUt wait, Scripture says nothing about Clorox. Paul says as long as you thank God for it you can eat anything, right?


----------



## Davidius

Pergamum said:


> JOsh:
> 
> YOu quote the following:
> 
> Science or experience can never show that anything is sinful.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don;t you regularly drink Clorox then and encourage others to do the same?
> 
> Because you do not want to damage your temple. Science and reason show us that drinking Clorox is bad; therefore we refrain to be good stewards of our Gid given bodies. BUt wait, Scripture says nothing about Clorox. Paul says as long as you thank God for it you can eat anything, right?



Non sequitur. You still haven't proven a link between "damaging/stupid" and "sinful," and there's a huge difference. As most like to do, you have ripped the verse about defiling our "temple" out of context. Paul was talking about adultery there, something not necessarily related to physical health and which is actually sinful.


----------



## Pergamum

When did I even use that verse David?

Is persistent stupidity sin? I guess that is a topic for another thread? I would say that ignoring the facts and persisting in a stupid act is sin. And that is what regular smoking (i.e. beyond a few cigs a day) is...

But doing something harmful to your body that common sense says is harmful and scientific studies back that up is a violation of the WCF and its not killing part.


----------



## Gesetveemet

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> . . . you have ripped the verse about defiling our "temple" out of context. Paul was talking about adultery there . . .





So you think a Christians body is the temple of God only when he is commiting adultery? 



William

.


----------



## Gesetveemet

joshua said:


> Why is it that there are people who have been rabid smokers for years upon years upon years, and yet there lungs are as clear as can be and they're not dead or dying?



Just where are all these people who have smoked for years and have lungs as clear as can be? Also we all all dying because of sin.


William 


.


----------



## Mushroom

This thread brings up a complicated problem for me:

Was I committing sin when I burned off a tattoo of an old girlfriend's name with a cigarette? It sure wasn't very pleasing to the "flesh". Actually kinda hurt, and stank purty bad, too. Next time I'm usin' an exacto knife!


----------



## VictorBravo

Brad said:


> This thread brings up a complicated problem for me:
> 
> Was I committing sin when I burned off a tattoo of an old girlfriend's name with a cigarette? It sure wasn't very pleasing to the "flesh". Actually kinda hurt, and stank purty bad, too. Next time I'm usin' an exacto knife!



Yes, that was a sin on many counts, brother. Probably at the top of the list would be aesthetics.


----------



## Megaloo

Pergamum said:


> Ha! JollySPectre...I just noticed your avatar! Spectres are anything but jolly!



The only thing jolly about Spectre is when you are not on the receiving end. The reason I have my weird name is combining the Jolly Green aspect of rescue helicopters, which I am doing now, and the AC-130H Spectre Gunships part that did previously. So, I have seriously thought about getting some green feet and a Spectre for a tattoo. So i am kind of interested in the details of this forum. A friend of mine showed me the verse about having a tattoo of the dead, so that is why I never got it. Plus, if I got shot down and captured, it is kind of hard to deny what I was doing on bad guy territory with the mascot right there on my body! Also, I saw that Bob removed the demon slayer tattoo, so maybe it is time to grow up.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPS! I was using my wifes account....I'll fix this later.


----------



## BobVigneault

Dustin, I have never had a Demon Slayer tattoo or any tattoo for that matter. I was giving a hypothetical. 

I am still tat and piercing free and will remain that way unless a totalitarian regime puts me in a prison camp and forces me to get a tattoo. Maybe they will let me get a butterfly on my ankle.

Also, I don't smoke and I don't have to get real philosophical about it. It's a dirty, smelly habit and I don't even want to be around smokers. YUCK!!! Again, if I should catch fire I will probably smoke for a bit. As Joan of Arc said, "I'm smoking more now, but enjoying it less."


----------



## Davidius

Pergamum said:


> When did I even use that verse David?
> 
> Is persistent stupidity sin? I guess that is a topic for another thread? I would say that ignoring the facts and persisting in a stupid act is sin. And that is what regular smoking (i.e. beyond a few cigs a day) is...
> 
> But doing something harmful to your body that common sense says is harmful and scientific studies back that up is a violation of the WCF and its not killing part.



Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you used it directly. But you mentioned harming "the temple," which is as good as in indirect reference, in my opinion. The language of the body as a temple had to come from somewhere. 

I'm not sure what I think about using scientific studies as a criterion of judging whether something is sin. They can't seem to make up their minds about the nutritional value of eggs and I won't to do know whether or not I'm sinning by eating them!  Seriously, scientific data changes all the time and the issue of eggs is just one blatant example. 



Gesetveemet said:


> CarolinaCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . you have ripped the verse about defiling our "temple" out of context. Paul was talking about adultery there . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think a Christians body is the temple of God only when he is commiting adultery?
> 
> 
> 
> William
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Of course that's not what I think, William. I'm just saying it's not for _you_ to decide what does and does not defile the Temple. Paul was talking about a SIN actually LISTED in the TEN COMMANDMENTS. I hope that anyone who thinks that smoking is a "defilement of the temple" has ceased to eat all fast food and dessert! The #1 killer in this country is heart disease, not lung cancer.


----------



## JollySpectre9

BobVigneault said:


> As Joan of Arc said, "I'm smoking more now, but enjoying it less."




 ....that is wrong, that is so wrong...

(hey, is it getting hot in here???)


----------



## JoeRe4mer

I will just comment on the cigarette question with a story from my own personal experience. Growing up we had at least one smoker in the house at all times and I do believe it affected my health negatively. 
That said if a person smokes in a private area away from family, friends and co-workers who don't smoke then I would say thats their problem. Its hard to say its always a sin to have a cigar or a cigarette in every case. Even old Spurgeon had a smoke from time to time.


----------



## Matthias

*2 cents from a recent quitter *

Hi all...

I guess this is as good a place as any to make my first post. I just wanted to share a bit about my experiences with quitting smoking, as it is very recent and it hasn't been that long since I quit... 1 week to be exact. lol

In short, its been a nightmare... I had NO idea how much control this addiction had over me. The cravings have been constant, and almost paiful. There is really no other way to describe it. There is absolutly no doubt that it I was in total bondage and slavery to this addiction. Looking back, I realize just how much I had to alter my life just to remain a smoker, and "God Forbid" avoid running out of smokes. It took planning and great care to feed my habit... especially if I was going to be any length of time in a place that did not allow smoking. Its been by answered prayer (constant prayer) and the Grace of God that I have managed this 1 week. I do believe this will be a permanent quit, because I see the Lords hand in removing my cravings... I have seen it before. I was able to give up a 300 dollar a day cocaine habit OVERNIGHT when in his Grace the Lord called me out and saved me. Cocaine was a cake walk compared to the cigarettes. Just thought I would share this in case anyone out there is considering smoking in "moderation"... 

Do I believe smoking is addictive? YES Do I think it has the ability to bring you under its power? YES Do I believe its been designed like this by EVIL and INIQUITOUS corprations and sponsored by EVIL and WICKED govts for the enslavment of people? YES Do I believe smoking can be expedient or edifying? NO Do I believe Christians should partake at all in this activity? NOT A CHANCE... addiction is sin no matter which way you look at

Its very damaging to your testimony as well...

Just some thoughts from someone who has walked this painful road

 <----- me as a smoker


PS I am covered in Tattoos which I had done before I was saved..... I would not, after the New Birth, get any more tattoos


----------

