# How many "Tats" and why?



## DMcFadden (Aug 13, 2015)

Mention in another thread about a prominent Christian minister with "tats" got me thinking. Checking him out on Google confirmed that he does indeed have a number of tattoos on his forearms and shoulders.

How many of you have tats and why did you get them? And, if you have them, are they covered or do they show in most public activities? I'm of an older generation (located in a niche somewhere between the WWII guys who got them in the war and the Millennials who get them all over their bodies today) and confess to being more than a little perplexed/amused by the phenomenon.


----------



## starchild1980200 (Aug 13, 2015)

Lol, I have "tats" my tattoos and I have a love hate relationship if you will, I have three tattoos my children's names and my name. I have a love hate relationship with my tattoos because I have had more children and now I want to put their names too but it will hurt really bad and I don't what them to be visible because I have a more professional life and job so yea. I want more but I don't lol

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using Tapatalk


----------



## Jake (Aug 13, 2015)

I have none and am not convinced that they are lawful for Christians.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 13, 2015)

Jake said:


> I have none and am not convinced that they are lawful for Christians.



Well then I'm in a heap of trouble. Photo below shows me doing one back maybe 10 years ago. I won't argue the point, but if you read Leviticus 19:28 go through the entire chapter, applying equal weight to all the admonitions found in it first, then we can discuss it. 

Joan Baez, a folk singer well known in bygone days, was asked why she got a tattoo and replied, "How do you explain an impulse?" I got my first one at 14 and worked in street shops for years before I finally retired 8 months ago. I wanted one from the time I first noticed a tattoo on a man's forearm when I was a little kid. 

Years later I'm convinced it is a tribal thing that is either in a person's DNA or not. It was known in ancient Egypt as well as other ancient cultures ;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...os-Siberian-princess--little-changed-art.html


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 13, 2015)

Number of tats: 0

Reason for number: I'm a narcissist and I don't want anything to detract from my hard-earned scars.

Besides that, Dennis, I'm only slightly younger than you, have the same perplexity, and my Mom would disapprove.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (Aug 13, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> Well then I'm in a heap of trouble.



Tattoo's are not the context of Romans 14:14 but nevertheless I offer it."I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean." I think there may be something to glean from that in regard to tattoos, I may be wrong. And Jimmy makes a good point about Lev 19:28. Lev 19:27 reads "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard." And I think it's hard to say what the term or practice actually refers. I am not convinced the more modern word "tattoo" is really a good translation choice. From looking at Strong's and the many varied renderings by different translations I'd say the word/ and or practice may be slightly ambiguous to us.- "print marks"(KJV);"etched mark"(Green's Literal Translation);"and a writing,a cross-mark, ye do not put on you"(YLT) Not sure what Young's is trying to say?

p.s- (no tats)


----------



## KMK (Aug 13, 2015)

No tats. No piercings. No hair dyes. Just natural beauty.


----------



## bookslover (Aug 13, 2015)

Being an adult, I have no tattoos.


----------



## bookslover (Aug 13, 2015)

KMK said:


> No tats. No piercings. No hair dyes. Just natural beauty.



Ah, but you didn't say you don't have any hair plugs! Heh.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 13, 2015)

bookslover said:


> Being an adult, I have no tattoos.



And you must be very proud of that.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 13, 2015)

Are we starting another "tat" thread?

Maybe I can feel good about myself in that I've never had even a discreet tat, but maybe eating so much that I'm 2 stone overweight is a greater sin?

We sometimes have tat TV shows on from America these days, and I occasionally catch a bit of them. 

The overwhelming feelings are of how ridiculous it is, and of sorrow for these stupid people who don't just get one or two discreet and "tasteful" tats, but cover their whole arm or body with them in an anti-aesthetic mess; and that tats don't improve what God has given you.

People should get tats, if they get them, that can be removed.


----------



## bookslover (Aug 13, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > Being an adult, I have no tattoos.
> ...



Actually, yes. It's nice to know that one is able to resist whatever the current fad is.


----------



## bookslover (Aug 13, 2015)

I was fascinated when earrings recently became acceptable for men. Some of the first guys I saw with them were older men - guys in their 50s and 60s. Were these guys thinking: "Dang, I want an earring, but it's the 1950s and I have to wait until the 1990s to get one? Bummer!" LOL


----------



## bookslover (Aug 13, 2015)

Peairtach said:


> ...and of sorrow for these stupid people...



Then, there are the _seriously_ stupid people: nose rings (especially the ones that make you look like you've got metal snot dripping from your nose), tongue rings, etc.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 13, 2015)

Peairtach said:


> The overwhelming feelings are of how ridiculous it is, and of sorrow for these stupid people who don't just get one or two discreet and "tasteful" tats, but cover their whole arm or body with them in an anti-aesthetic mess; and that tats don't improve what God has given you.
> 
> People should get tats, if they get them, that can be removed.





bookslover said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > bookslover said:
> ...



Thank God you are not like 'that tax collector'.


----------



## AThornquist (Aug 13, 2015)

I don't have any tattoos; I don't have the money for them nor the desire to be stuck with needles unnecessarily. However, one of my pastors has tattoos and I know a number of Christians who admire the artistry of well-done tattoos. I believe it's a matter of Christian liberty.


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 13, 2015)

Word of (unsolicited) advice. If you elect to get foreign words for tattoos, PLEASE be sure that they are spelled correctly.

Several software programs reverse the letters in Hebrew, when doing a copy and paste, and I'm getting tired of having my eyes roll out of my skull every time I see one spelled backwards.


----------



## AThornquist (Aug 13, 2015)

DMcFadden said:


> Word of (unsolicited) advice. If you elect to get foreign words for tattoos, PLEASE be sure that they are spelled correctly.
> 
> Several software programs reverse the letters in Hebrew, when doing a copy and paste, and I'm getting tired of having my eyes roll out of my skull every time I see one spelled backwards.



Haha! I think it's funny when some goofy, white hipster in the States gets a tattoo of a Japanese or Chinese word, especially when it's as mundane as "water". It would similarly be funny to see an asian man who doesn't speak English have "WATER" down his skinny arm.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 13, 2015)

DMcFadden said:


> Word of (unsolicited) advice. If you elect to get foreign words for tattoos, PLEASE be sure that they are spelled correctly.
> 
> Several software programs reverse the letters in Hebrew, when doing a copy and paste, and I'm getting tired of having my eyes roll out of my skull every time I see one spelled backwards.



This was a major problem when I was stationed in Japan. Fellow Marines would go out in town and get tattoos with Japanese characters, that they thought said one thing, but usually mentioned something unflattering.


----------



## hammondjones (Aug 13, 2015)

I have a tattoo. It is scripture (in English, which really sets it apart). I figured at the time that if it was going to be established forever in the heavens, it wouldn't be so bad on my leg for my 60 remaining years. 

That said, although I don't spend a lot of time thinking about it, I don't know that I'd do it all over again if I could. And if I were to get into a ministry situation where it would be a stumbling block, then I'd certainly regret it. Though, if Timothy could go under the knife, then surely could go under the laser.


----------



## johnny (Aug 13, 2015)

During the early nineties I had nose lip and ear piercings.
I wanted tattoos but could not afford them.
I believe my motivation to do this was to be seen as "different"

This rebelliousness may not be the reason everyone participates in body modification
but it certainly was mine at the time, and I'm glad I stopped when I did.

I had an MRI xray yesterday and was asked, Do you have any tattoos?
My personal answer is, But for the Grace of God, I don't.
Again, this may not be everyone's answer. :0


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Aug 13, 2015)

I'm a decade about younger than you Dennis, but I also have no clue as to the attraction. However, I had no idea of the health risks. http://www.livescience.com/32801-do-mri-machines-affect-tattoos.html


----------



## OPC'n (Aug 13, 2015)

I've been wanting to get a tat of my dog on my foot (I had to put him down two years ago  ) but haven't for three reasons....I hate pain, the money, and what if they did a really bad job and now it's permanent? If they could put lidocaine on my foot and if I knew someone who could do it that's really good and wouldn't charge tons of money I would get one. I'm not convinced that it's a sin. I think it's more of a "only those types of people have tats so stay away from tats because you don't want to be identified as being one of them" sort thing.


----------



## Jake (Aug 13, 2015)

> We might approach this subject altogether differently, and a little more healthily (more light than heat, in giving offense, or taking offense), if we'd consider this from the understanding that our bodies are not our own. This, then, would give us all pause on purposeful and needless permanent damage/modification we suffer our bodies to go through. I say this as one who is trying to progress in the mortification of my fleshly over-indulgence in the arena of diet. The following sermons may be worth your time, even if you ultimately disagree:
> 
> 1. Who Owns Our Bodies? - Modification, Tattoos, etc.
> 2. Who Owns our Bodies? (Concluded)



I was going to add a link to these sermons. They were very helpful to me in thinking about the question.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 13, 2015)

No tats for me. ...'Cause ya don't slap a bumper sticker on a Rolls Royce! 

Just kidding....I would only get a tattoo with the name of a lost child or if I was in an elite military unit. Otherwise, the reasons seem too trivial to put something long-term in my skin. I believe they are lawful but mostly unwise. 

However, tattoos are certainly not the same as the "cuttings in the flesh for the dead"...mentioned in OT verse (for true cuttings in the flesh for the dead, see the Dani tribe who ritually cut off a finger at the knuckles when a relative dies...tattoos are not that, but merely attempts to beautify the body, a universal human trait).

The fact that God owns our bodies does not mean we cannot cut our hair, trim our nails, dye our hair, pierce our ears/noses, beautify ourselves, etc. Nose rings and jewelry are even mentioned in Scripture as gifts of the godly towards their beloved (even God giving such things on occasion).

p.s. when I was looking to marry, I would automatically disqualify young women with tattoos as dates as a mark of poor judgment or impulsiveness.....both being signs of a poor choice in a future spouse. Call me judgmental, but I think it probably weeded out a lot of chaff.


----------



## arapahoepark (Aug 13, 2015)

None. Though at my age of 23 I think I can chaulk it up to my personality...I don't see the fascination.


----------



## Edward (Aug 13, 2015)

Peairtach said:


> People should get tats, if they get them, that can be removed.



Tats can be easily removed. Heat them with a laser until the ink boils and explodes out of the skin. May take several sessions.


----------



## Edward (Aug 13, 2015)

johnny said:


> I wanted tattoos but could not afford them.
> I believe my motivation to do this was to be seen as "different"



It was long hair when I was young. "I want to be different just like everybody else". 

Tattoos were reserved in those days for those in the lower socioeconomic strata. Carnies, perhaps, or sailors (but only enlisted men), etc.


----------



## Rich Koster (Aug 13, 2015)

I have zero tats. After being jabbed so many times for allergy testing back in the 60's, I don't desire any more needles.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Aug 13, 2015)

I don't have any, mainly because I am too self conscious and would be worried people thought I did it to be trendy. At 25 I feel like I missed the window to get inked as a millennial


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 14, 2015)

I've thought of getting a tattoo of a heart that says "Mom" in it.
Classic.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 14, 2015)

Had an uncle with a heart and the words, "Love to Jam" - as a kid I briefly thought it meant he liked canning fruit.


----------



## BGF (Aug 14, 2015)

No tats here. Like others before, I do not see the appeal, but then again I do not even like to mark up books. I agree with Jake in that I also am not convinced it is lawful for Christians, but since I am not prepared to defend that competently I do not insist on it. My 23 year old daughter has 2 tattoos that I know of, and personally I think they detract from her natural beauty.


----------



## Gforce9 (Aug 14, 2015)

BGF said:


> My 23 year old daughter has 2 tattoos that I know of, and personally I think they detract from her natural beauty.



Brett,
This is how I tend to look at it, too. I heard a comedian tell a story of his sister-in-law going to college on a basketball scholarship. She got a tattoo on her lower stomach of Tweety Bird bouncing a basketball. He said after marriage and three children, it turned into Big Bird with a beach ball.
I would never get one and find myself asking "why" of those who do. I guess many folks wouldn't understand my guitar collection, either, though I could "get rid of" any piece by days end, if I wanted to do so.........


----------



## Philip (Aug 14, 2015)

I can't find a good argument against them that isn't ultimately binding someone else's conscience with one's own personal convictions.

That said, I probably won't ever get one and see little reason why it would be advisable or desirable for myself. Then again, I also don't see any particular reason why it would be advisable or desirable for me to visit Disney World, drink Tequila, or wear flip-flops.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 14, 2015)

Well, it stems from vanity. We have the bodies and looks God gave us. To adorn ourselves with decorations, piercings, make-up, engravings is to think very lightly of the work of God's hands; it's also to follow the practice of idolaters and pagans. Isn't that the moral precept behind the prohibitions in Leviticus 19? All the practices mentioned in that group of verses were the superstitious practices of the surrounding peoples. The Israelites were to be separate. This requirement is as relevant today as ever.

We should look after our bodies (though not obsessively, as physical exercise profiteth little). In the case of the Christian, the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit: should we be scarring it and engraving it, especially with pagan symbols (which is what most tattoos are, in some form or another)?; or worse, with the Word of God itself? The law is engraved on our hearts, if we are regenerated; why would we go backwards and physically engrave it and on our flesh no less?


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 14, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> Well, it stems from vanity. We have the bodies and looks God gave us. To adorn ourselves with decorations, piercings, make-up, engravings is to think very lightly of the work of God's hands; it's also to follow the practice of idolaters and pagans. Isn't that the moral precept behind the prohibitions in Leviticus 19? All the practices mentioned in that group of verses were the superstitious practices of the surrounding peoples. The Israelites were to be separate. This requirement is as relevant today as ever.
> 
> We should look after our bodies (though not obsessively, as physical exercise profiteth little). In the case of the Christian, the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit: should we be scarring it and engraving it, especially with pagan symbols (which is what most tattoos are, in some form or another)?; or worse, with the Word of God itself? The law is engraved on our hearts, if we are regenerated; why would we go backwards and physically engrave it and on our flesh no less?


I agree with all you've posted. For myself I can only say that I was not regenerated until my 36th year, and then it took some time for the process of sanctification to progress. Much of my tattoo work was done previous to that, though I confess I did not have the spiritual clarity to 'see' the vanity/idolatry connection at that time. Now at 66 years if I had it to do over again I would have made other choices. Working in the business for over 20 years I can only draw a parallel with John Newton in his regret of his former vocation, not for his brilliance nor piety. Still, I am what I am through the grace of God. Amazing grace.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Aug 14, 2015)

Zero.

I do not stand convinced that there is any scriptural proscription against getting tattoos _per se_, but in far too many cases I find tattoos to be a manifestation of self-idolatry, and frankly I don't need yet another stumbling block to my sinful over-realized ego.


----------



## Miss Marple (Aug 14, 2015)

It may be a tired argument but following the same logic I should not dye, or style, my hair; or wear jewelry or decorative type clothing. This is where the Amish have landed.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 14, 2015)

For three reasons I have no tattoos:

1) I was brought up to loathe them. In working-class Ulster, moreover, tattoos are often associated with thuggery and other unpleasantness. 

2) I believe Leviticus 19:28 is a law of common equity and thus obliges all men everywhere. Not everything in that chapter is applicable today, but some of it is. 

3) It is contrary to common sense to permanently mark your body with something that you may very quickly grow to dislike. Experience teaches us that many people who get tattoos soon regret getting them. Should we ignore the lessons of human experience?


----------



## Miss Marple (Aug 14, 2015)

Oh, or wear makeup, of which I am quite fond. This is the fundamentalist position. Or perfume, I'd think.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 14, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> Oh, or wear makeup, of which I am quite fond. This is the fundamentalist position. Or perfume, I'd think.



Scripture does appear to distinguish between beautifying the human body and defacing it. Would you agree with this distinction?


----------



## a mere housewife (Aug 14, 2015)

Having none myself, I like to understand the significance to the person who has them -- what made them want their bodies to say something -- to themselves or others -- always. Not all such decisions are made in rashness or haste. It's worth understanding about people.


----------



## Gesetveemet (Aug 14, 2015)

I have two tattoos that I with sadness had put on in my youth. If only the Lord had shown me back then that I am nothing but sin before a Holy God and come to understand that I have a never dying soul for the great eternity I wouldn't have thought so much about life here below and never would have gotten them.


Have a blessed Lords day,


----------



## Edward (Aug 14, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> Or perfume, I'd think.



If you can't see a distinction between perfume and tattoos, I'm not even sure where to begin the discussion.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 14, 2015)

In my younger days it was only the military, the merchant navy and gypsies that had them.

Sailors would have little swallow tattoos between their thumb and forefinger on both hands to help them steer the ship and have a good voyage.

Some wouls also smoke Player's Navy Cut cigarettes


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 14, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> Oh, or wear makeup, of which I am quite fond. This is the fundamentalist position. Or perfume, I'd think.



Make-up was always a no-no in the Free Presbyterian CofS, as was smoking for ladies. They're probably still no-nos.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 14, 2015)

I have close to a quarter sleeve. Unfortunately in my ignorance I got a tattoo that I shouldn't have. It's been almost 9 years but I'm finally looking into getting it covered. It's cheaper to get it covered by another tattoo then to get it removed. 

I do not think one can make an argument for no tattoos based on Leviticus 19. If you use this argumentation you misunderstand the purpose of the text. Likewise, you are also picking and choosing what you do and do not want from the text instead of letting it flow as it ought. Also, the body being the temple of the Spirit is in regards to immorality, not tattoos. Eisegesis is never a good option for creating a "biblical" practice.


----------



## TylerRay (Aug 14, 2015)

I want to guard my speech carefully about my own sinful dispositions, so I'll just start by saying that I'm the kind of guy who would likely be attracted to tattoos if I did not believe that they are unlawful for Christians.

Getting a name or symbol on one's body is a statement that the one named or idea symbolized has at least partial ownership of one's person. It shows a dedication of one's body to the idea or person represented in the tattoo. I believe that is the point in Lev. 19.

As for the notion of "Christian tattoos," which show God's ownership of us: God has given us a visible sign of ownership, and that is Baptism. To use tattoos as a visible sign to aid in sanctification is to raise up a false sacrament.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 14, 2015)

Leviticus 19:28 does not forbid body modifications for beauty. Scriptures against vanity or modesty would apply rather than Lev. 19 when counseling young people against getting "tatted up." The phrase in Lev 19 is linked to the reason of "for the dead." Self-laceration and marking the body in this context is associated with pagan worship and is forbidden due to this association with heathenism. Wise counsel against tattoos, therefore, ought to address the other reasons annexed to the act of tattooing rather than trying to make a case that the act itself, per se, is immoral based on Lev. 19. 

What Lev. 19 condemns is the pagan practice still found in some tribal societies where ritualized mourning rituals include cuttings of the flesh or even the chopping off of digits of the finger, etc. The Arikara Sioux in the journals of Jim Bridger were said to do this (cut off a knuckle at the death of a relative) and the Papuan highland tribes as well.

We see the priests of Baal do this ritual cutting in I Kings: "So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed." (1 Kings 18:28).

So, don't mark your body in pagan service. Other forms of body modification for the purpose of beauty (nose rings, ear rings) were permitted, even though the flesh and skin were pierced in these acts as well. 

With that being said, I still believe that as a culture reverts back to paganism, we do see an increase in tattoos. Yet, I still see no Scriptural proof that all tats are per se (in and of themselves) sinful for the very fact of marking up the skin. I don't believe Lev 19 should ever be enlisted as a proof-text against tats unless someone is ritually cutting themselves in pagan mourning for the dead.


----------



## arapahoepark (Aug 14, 2015)

Pergamum said:


> Leviticus 19:28 does not forbid body modifications for beauty. Scriptures against vanity or modesty would apply rather than Lev. 19 when counseling young people against getting "tatted up." The phrase in Lev 19 is linked to the reason of "for the dead." Self-laceration and marking the body in this context is associated with pagan worship and is forbidden due to this association with heathenism. Wise counsel against tattoos, therefore, ought to address the other reasons annexed to the act of tattooing rather than trying to make a case that the act itself, per se, is immoral based on Lev. 19.
> 
> What Lev. 19 condemns is the pagan practice still found in some tribal societies where ritualized mourning rituals include cuttings of the flesh or even the chopping off of digits of the finger, etc. The Arikara Sioux in the journals of Jim Bridger were said to do this (cut off a knuckle at the death of a relative) and the Papuan highland tribes as well.
> 
> ...



I whole heartedly agree. I was hesitant to bring this up but since you did I will say it. When asked about tattoos from friends and Christians I tell them that in many places it is pagan. So if I was on a mission board and a person with a tattoo wanted to to do missionary work among a people who practiced these ritual I would firmly say no. Are the people to give up defacing their bodies for God while the missionary doesn't have to? That's a double standard. Or would the missionary not preach the whole counsel of God or try to 'redeem' tattoos?


----------



## Miss Marple (Aug 15, 2015)

Of course I know the difference between perfume and tattoos. But the argument "God did not create you that way" could be logically used against both, and two large Christian groups (Amsih , fundamentalists) have done so, so I think I am making a fair point. No need to be harsh. I don't have tattoos, btw, because I think of them as masculine.


----------



## Miss Marple (Aug 15, 2015)

Yes re the distinction between beautifying and defacing; but some think little feminine tattoos are beautifying (butterflies, roses). I don't think so but it is rather subjective.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 15, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> Of course I know the difference between perfume and tattoos. But the argument "God did not create you that way" could be logically used against both, and two large Christian groups (Amsih , fundamentalists) have done so, so I think I am making a fair point. No need to be harsh. I don't have tattoos, btw, because I think of them as masculine.


I'm in agreement with Miss Marple. Seems to be a 'hot button issue' with some. While make up is not as extreme an example as tattoos it is body modification. In 'The Decorated Body', by Robert Brain, a book that explores body modification throughout history, by all cultures, the author points to make up and perfumes as, in a sense parallel to tattooing. Wearing earrings, plucking eyebrows and shaping them with a pencil, false eyelashes, are further examples of body 'enhancement.'

It is an example of cultures decorating or modifying their body to, as they see it, enhance same. In regard to culture he points out that in Victorian England, when the average women was consistent with the custom of that day, she was properly attired wearing clothing that covered her from her neck to her ankles, and sleeves down to the wrists. 

At that same period in history, in the primitive societies, a women was suitably clothed wearing a grass skirt with her breasts bared. Suffice to say that when we meet our Lord we will have glorified bodies and there will be no tattoos, nor make up for that matter.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 15, 2015)

arap said:


> Or would the missionary not preach the whole counsel of God or try to 'redeem' tattoos?



This isn't a fair assessment. The reason WHY one gets a tattoo is important. If one gets them for ritualistic purposes then only God can change the heart. To think a missionary... a man can change their heart is absurd. Likewise, putting on a yoke for these people by also demonizing something that isn't sinful is also absurd and quite Pharisaical.

Scriptural proof IN CONTEXT is important for any discussion regarding whats lawful and whats not lawful.


----------



## arapahoepark (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> arap said:
> 
> 
> > Or would the missionary not preach the whole counsel of God or try to 'redeem' tattoos?
> ...



You misunderstand me and impute motives to me that are not there.


----------



## BGF (Aug 15, 2015)

"Intent" has been mentioned or implied multiple times in this thread. Following the argument that this is the controlling factor in whether or not tattoos are permissible, I would be interested to see what some would consider lawful and unlawful intentions.


----------



## a mere housewife (Aug 15, 2015)

Mr. Frey, I assume it would be the same with wearing makeup or a lot of other things? My motivations for posting here could also be quite sinful.

We all do hasty things. And I have known some people to get a tattoo for reasons that were not at all hasty -- but those reasons were told to me in confidence. I think it's valuable to understand what is meaningful to other people. Even where in some cases a person has not recognised Christ's reign over their body, it's good to treat them with more dignity than they knew how to treat themselves.

The first poster in the thread has tattoos of her children. Regardless of what one thinks of tattoos -- I think its sweet that she loves her children so much she wants an irrevocable reminder of them. The world would be a better place if we had more such mothers.


----------



## Captain Picard (Aug 15, 2015)

There are plenty of New Testament passages that I think make tattoos unwise, even if I were to accept at face value the already mentioned exegesis that says that Leviticus 19 only forbids their use in pagan/necromantic ritual. Which I don't.

What happened to the Church coming out from among Babylon and being separate? I used to drink much more than I do now, and I used to smoke cigarettes. I think both, while not intrinsically sinful because booze and tobacco are sinful, were wastes of time and money, defacers of my body and reason, and mingled up my appearance with that of the world. I would never counsel someone it was good or adiaphora to drink a lot or smoke cigarettes every day, and by analogy I wouldn't recommend tattoos either.

This doesn't mean, btw, that I'm in the "get them removed or you're in grievous sin" camp. My mom is pretty close to there, I am not.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 15, 2015)

arap said:


> Are the people to give up defacing their bodies for God while the missionary doesn't have to? That's a double standard. Or would the missionary not preach the whole counsel of God or try to 'redeem' tattoos?



Trent,

I thought your intent was quite clear here, but for clarification could you expound on this statement?


----------



## arapahoepark (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> arap said:
> 
> 
> > Are the people to give up defacing their bodies for God while the missionary doesn't have to? That's a double standard. Or would the missionary not preach the whole counsel of God or try to 'redeem' tattoos?
> ...



What message would a tattooed missionary send to a pagan tattooing tribe? How would he talk about Leviticus while trying to explain away his own tattoo?
I am no Pharisee, stop pulling that card lest you break number 9.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 15, 2015)

Captain Picard said:


> I think both, while _not_ intrinsically sinful because booze and tobacco _are_ sinful



I'm not following here... It's not sinful but it is at the same time?



Captain Picard said:


> I would never counsel someone it was good or adiaphora to drink _a lot_ or smoke cigarettes _every day_, and by analogy I wouldn't recommend tattoos either.



I wouldn't counsel someone to drink a lot or smoke everyday either. I'm not sure how the terminology you used applies to tattoos. Everyday? A lot?

I think it's easy to make something up because someone doesn't like tattoos or they might be "taboo" or whatever. I think it's hard for someone to use the Law lawfully.


----------



## Captain Picard (Aug 15, 2015)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Captain Picard said:
> 
> 
> > I think both, while _not_ intrinsically sinful because booze and tobacco _are_ sinful
> ...



I meant, alcohol and tobacco use of all kinds/types/times is not sinful in and of itself.
Part of the problem is that I think it's difficult to treat tattoos in the same way one could responsibly treat alcohol, in that tattoos are these permanent, perpetually visible decisions.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 15, 2015)

arap said:


> Andrew P.C. said:
> 
> 
> > arap said:
> ...



My best friend is a tattooed missionary to a pagan tribe. He has been very effective. I think he can communicate that his past was ungodly, yet God in his mercy can change your life and make you useful. And I think this also communicates to the pagan tribe that they, too, can be useful servants of God as well, despite their pasts.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 16, 2015)

I think the issue of tattooing is its permanent altering of the body. If tats and other body modification weren't permanent there would not be the sense that we are saying to the Lord, "my body is mine and I can do whatever I want with it".

This also brings up the ethical similarities/differences between tats/body modification and cosmetic surgery.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Edward (Aug 16, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> Of course I know the difference between perfume and tattoos. But the argument "God did not create you that way" could be logically used against both, and two large Christian groups (Amsih , fundamentalists) have done so, so I think I am making a fair point. No need to be harsh.



Not intending to be harsh, just stating what I considered to be obvious. Rather than trying to structure the argument myself as to why this is true (since being Irenic is not one of my gifts), I'll incorporate by reference Mr. Tallach's comment of this morning:



Peairtach said:


> I think the issue of tattooing is its permanent altering of the body. If tats and other body modification weren't permanent there would not be the sense that we are saying to the Lord, "my body is mine and I can do whatever I want with it".
> 
> This also brings up the ethical similarities/differences between tats/body modification and cosmetic surgery.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 16, 2015)

Peairtach said:


> I think the issue of tattooing is its permanent altering of the body. If tats and other body modification weren't permanent there would not be the sense that we are saying to the Lord, "my body is mine and I can do whatever I want with it".
> 
> This also brings up the ethical similarities/differences between tats/body modification and cosmetic surgery.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2



Your assertions prove too much. Ear or nose piercing then would also seem to be condemned by your rationale, yet we see these things in the Old Testament among God's people.

For that matter then...now in these New Testament times, by your rationale condemning permanent things done to the body that cannot be reversed, circumcision might be condemned as immoral instead of being an indifferent choice. Studies continue to show only small and uncertain health benefits from this procedure,and some risks...and it is an irreversible procedure done to a patient not able to give consent to the cutting off of their own flesh (mainly for reasons of appearance). So, do you believe circumcision is sin, or not? And by what rationale?


About cosmetic surgery:

Cosmetic surgery seems permissible inasmuch as it is okay for any person to try to beautify themselves or improve deficient features. It would certainly be ungenerous to assume that the motivation behind all of these cosmetic surgeries was mere sinful vanity and shallowness. It is okay to try to make yourself look better.

I just read a book about advances in medicine which featured some advances in helping people to improve their appearance: (1) plastic surgeons repairing burn damage to skin, mainly in order to reduce scarification and make them look better, (2) urologists repairing deformities to the genitals so that the members looked normal and could function in marital relations and not cause overmuch embarrassment during their intimate moments with their spouses , (3) Others who are pioneering post-mastectomy breast implants (again, mainly for appearance rather than function), (4) others who are reducing large noses which are unsightly, and which were the cause of childhood teasing (only some of these over-large noses impaired breathing. (5) And others who are pioneering skin bleaching/coloration treatments for folks that have unevenly pigmented skin so that they don't look blotchy.

I believe a committed Christian could become a cosmetic surgeon to the glory of God and thank God for the ability to perform each of the above procedures. We are too quick to denounce cosmetic surgery and impute bad motives to those who desire beautification.


----------



## Living Sacrifice (Aug 16, 2015)

Hello everyone - 

I have a few - if I could go back in time I would not get them. I feel that they are prideful and vain and regret getting them to begin with. I would not judge someone for getting one but would strongly encourage someone (a brother or sister in particular) from getting any if they are on the cusp and thinking of getting one.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 16, 2015)

Pergamum said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> > I think the issue of tattooing is its permanent altering of the body. If tats and other body modification weren't permanent there would not be the sense that we are saying to the Lord, "my body is mine and I can do whatever I want with it".
> ...



Sounds good, Pergy.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## KMK (Aug 16, 2015)

How much do tattoos cost?


----------



## Edward (Aug 16, 2015)

KMK said:


> How much do tattoos cost?



Depends on where you get them (probably in more ways than one). I think it used to be a couple of packs of cigarettes in prison, but with smoking now being banned in most of them, it may take less.


----------



## Philip (Aug 16, 2015)

As a cosmetic and (if done correctly) permanent cosmetic process, are braces on the teeth subject to a similar criticism?


----------



## OPC'n (Aug 16, 2015)

Myself included we've strayed from the point of the OP. "How Many "Tats" and why?".....not "are they sinful or not". Meaning I should have kept my mouth closed on this thread because I don't have any.


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 17, 2015)

Sarah,

Since I started the thread, the discussion has been interesting to watch. You are correct that my intent was not to spark a debate over sin. Because I'm afraid of needles, the whole thing creeps me out pretty strongly. But, since so many people I know (and respect) have festooned their bodies with ink art, it was a genuine curiosity to me why people get the things.

In my life span, SEVERAL things have changed vis a vis societal attitudes. It does not seem so long ago when a woman with a tat on her lower back was denominated as having a "tramp stamp." Now both men and women seem to have them on full display (arms, necks, legs, etc.). When you run into major tats greeting you in conservative churches, you begin to realize that this is a social phenom that has much greater popularity in the culture than some of us old guys realized. 

My original post sought to understand what people who get them are trying to say. Is it about personal expression? Rebellion? Identification with some niche in the broader culture? Individuation and artistic expression?


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 17, 2015)

DMcFadden said:


> My original post sought to understand what people who get them are trying to say. Is it about personal expression? Rebellion? Identification with some niche in the broader culture? Individuation and artistic expression?



All of the above, depending on the individual, and then some.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 17, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> It may be a tired argument but following the same logic I should not dye, or style, my hair; or wear jewelry or decorative type clothing. This is where the Amish have landed.



Well there's a bit of a step from avoiding these things and the Amish. Is doing these things a necessity? Such adornments were avoided by Christians in previous generations as they were signs of worldliness.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 17, 2015)

Philip said:


> As a cosmetic and (if done correctly) permanent cosmetic process, are braces on the teeth subject to a similar criticism?



That's rectifying a fault/imperfection towards the ideal that God has given us, not scrawling experimentally on the image and likenesd that God has made us, as if we knew better than Him.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 17, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> Miss Marple said:
> 
> 
> > It may be a tired argument but following the same logic I should not dye, or style, my hair; or wear jewelry or decorative type clothing. This is where the Amish have landed.
> ...



Is electricity (or automobiles) necessities?


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 17, 2015)

Peairtach said:


> Philip said:
> 
> 
> > As a cosmetic and (if done correctly) permanent cosmetic process, are braces on the teeth subject to a similar criticism?
> ...



Richard, 

Your statement, "scrawling experimentally on the image and likeness that God has made us, as if we knew better than Him" is a phrase full of subjective and emotionally-laden terms.

First, it appears that you distinguish between permissible actions that rectify a deficiency and impermissible markings (such as tats). Does this mean that one can only rectify a glaring fault rather than trying to beautify a body/face, etc that has no marked deficiencies or deformities but can still be improved upon by effort (i.e. we can correct the inadequate but cannot beautify the adequate)? Where is your Scriptural warrant for this?

Do you believe that nose-rings, ear-rings, hair dye are permissible? Would a nose-job then be permissible? Breast-augmentation for the married couple who has adequate financial means? Braids in the hair? Nail polish?

About your phrase, "as if we knew better than him..." - Are you okay then with skin bleaching to improve the consistency of skin tone for those with varied splotches of skin (unequal melanin distribution)? God gave them this skin, didn't he? How about surgeries for erasing birth-marks or other skin marks present from birth?

Do you have any sort of general guidance that can be applied across the board so as to judge what is permissible and what is not?


----------



## bookslover (Aug 18, 2015)

KMK said:


> How much do tattoos cost?



Asking for a friend? LOL


----------



## johnny (Aug 18, 2015)

Edward said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > How much do tattoos cost?
> ...



We are having a lot of riots in our prisons over that decision.
(I do feel some compassion for the smoking prisoners)


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 18, 2015)

Pergamum said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> > Philip said:
> ...



There's a big difference between seeking to remove genetic imperfections - e.g. birthmarks - towards the way God made us, which genetic imperfections have come in since the Fall, and, in our own fallen wisdom, adding our own markings to the body, which body is not ours. When Man was created he wasn't covered in pictures and writing and we have been given no authority to do this to ourselves or others in disrespect of God's image and likeness.

But as I said a discreet tat is a lot better than scrawling all over the body, and there are other abuses of the body than tats which may be more heinous, including allowing yourself get overweight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Davidson

Peace, brother Pergy, I'm bowing out of the debate.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 18, 2015)

Pergamum said:


> alexandermsmith said:
> 
> 
> > Miss Marple said:
> ...



Well, actually, a case could be made that electricity is a necessity today. However, since you're clearly being sarcastic, I would just say that electricity and automobiles are indifferent things; make-up, tattoos, ostentatious clothing are not.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 18, 2015)

Pergamum said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> > Philip said:
> ...



Your whole post is filled with a legalistic spirit. Hard cases make bad laws. There will always be situations which require thought and discernment. However, to use such cases to argue for such wide liberty, indeed licentiousness, is wrong. I think anyone who approached this subject in a reasoned, unbiased way would easily understand the difference in principle between cosmetic surgery used in response to, for example, an accident which led to the body being marred or deformed; and cosmetic surgery used because the person just doesn't like the way they look, or want to make themselves "prettier". The former is a legitimate use of medical expertise, which after all is itself God given; the latter an illegitimate use as it's nothing but pride. You mentioned "nose jobs"- some of these are actually to the benefit of the person's health, are they not? Improving the breathing.

Some people want a list of rules and dos and don'ts. Sometimes we need to just try to apply principles to every situation.

An earlier commenter mentioned that in different cultures there are different standards of modesty. I'm not sure if he was saying that he, himself, believed modesty was relativistic. What I would say is that maybe some cultures are just immodest. Covering oneself is a feature found across the world. It's not only the Victorians who thought that was necessary to be modest. I think Scripture lays down some pretty clear principles in this area. When Adam and Eve fell, they knew they were naked and covered themselves. With the loss of our original innocence, nakedness becomes something to be covered. That was the sin of Ham: uncovering the nakedness of his father. Paul counsels against ostentatious, gaudy clothing and adornments, because they were the adornments of the pagan and immoral. And not just of his own time. Just as in every culture the showing of flesh is a sign of paganism and immorality, so is gaudy clothing. From 1st Century Judea to 21st century Britain.

All of this is to say that whenever Scripture refers to artificial, or man initiated, adornments of the body it's not positive. The adornments for the Christian are spiritual, not carnal. Yes OT women wore piercings; OT men had multiple wives. It's not as simple as that. The only place where Scripture speaks about tattoos it is condemned. So even if that verse in Leviticus is not applicable here, that verse taken with other verses which talk about how we dress ourselves, gives a very strong indication that tattoos are not permissible. when all the evidence points against something, one surely needs a cast iron justification to say that it's actually permissible. Where is this justification?

And as to smoking: many today would say that to smoke is to violate the sixth commandment as we know full well the dangers and effects of smoking.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 18, 2015)

Ezekial 16:



> “‘I bathed you with water and washed the blood from you and put ointments on you. 10 I clothed you with an embroidered dress and put sandals of fine leather on you. I dressed you in fine linen and covered you with costly garments. 11 I adorned you with jewelry: I put bracelets on your arms and a necklace around your neck, 12 and I put a ring on your nose, earrings on your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. 13 So you were adorned with gold and silver; your clothes were of fine linen and costly fabric and embroidered cloth. Your food was honey, olive oil and the finest flour. You became very beautiful and rose to be a queen. 14 And your fame spread among the nations on account of your beauty, because the splendor I had given you made your beauty perfect, declares the Sovereign Lord.



Did God make Israel gaudy and ostentatiously sinful by His beautification efforts towards her (which were not merely to correct previous deficiencies)?


I believe that Scripture does not equate all attempts at beautification with sinful pride. There are principles of modesty and warnings against pride, yet it seems that these warnings do not prohibit all attempts at beautification. There is no command to be as frumpy as possible. 

Thus my position is: Beautification does not necessarily equal pride. Thus cosmetic surgery is often a permissible realm of Christian liberty.

If one has the technology to easily fix an ugly nose and this expenditure is not great, the person seems to be at liberty to fix their ugly nose and not be condemned by the Church. Likewise, fixing one's hair and skin, even via medical means, seems to be worthwhile endeavors (especially if you are married to a spouse that is not blind or ascetic). If botox works well and removes wrinkles...well, praise God for these medical advancements.

I am sure some of you have gotten your teeth whitened, after all. To be indifferent and careless as to your appearance does not equate necessarily to greater godliness.


----------



## ZackF (Aug 18, 2015)

No tats. My reasons are are subjective and not moral. I find them completely unattractive but not morally objectionable other than as a financial drain for some folks that cannot really afford them. They are ubiquitous now, almost like earrings used to be on women. I am dismissive of them when people ask about them. They get no suburbanite-turn-underground-indy-edginess credit from me as that is so 1993. In a similar vein, one of my employees has the whole ear plug, spacer thing going. He, 21 years old, kind of regrets it now but is past the point of no return save a surgical operation. Just yesterday we had a conversation about it. One earlobe is infected, bleeding and he was complaining about the pain. My grandma has advance Parkinson's, my grandpa just broke his leg and my mother is recovering from lung clots. I really don't care about this kid's stupid pain. People don't think. How many times can you change your girlfriends/wives name on your sagging middle aged pecs? Not to mention other areas. I'm probably the most antiwar guy here, not gung-ho or a military guy at all but I can conjure some respect for having one's corp, division, platoon, ship or whatever tattooed on your arm as member of a group that is likely to incur real scars when the bullets are flying. A wounded amputee, drafted into a war with a flag tatooed has my respect and sympathy but not his unemployed grandson spending 1000s on "body art". Oh by the way, a sunrise over your buttcrack is beautiful and meaningful how?


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 18, 2015)

*Time Out For Some Refreshment*

Just a reminder of who we all are, with or without tattoos.

From Pulpit Prayers, Alexander Maclaren, circa 1911, prayer # 156



> O Lord! truly we have nothing to pay, and frankly, Thou forgivest us all. May the sense of our infinite obligations to Thee for Thine infinite mercy to us open up fountains of joyful surrender in our hearts which will follow out always in all holy living, and in grateful yielding of ourselves to that great Saviour.
> 
> Deliver us, we pray Thee, from the error of ever making light of the sins which Thy pardoning mercy takes away. May we all, feel, what indeed is true, that we all have been forgiven very much. And may our love ever bear some proportion to our obligation and our lives be ordered by our love.
> 
> ...


----------



## KMK (Aug 18, 2015)

bookslover said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > How much do tattoos cost?
> ...



I was just curious if it is more than the cost of a haircut, for example.


----------



## Reformed Roman (Aug 18, 2015)

A tattoo can cost anywhere from $50 to $500. My wife got one which cost her about $200. I won't get any.. Just in case I am in a situation where I would regret it. I also don't have anything that is that pressing that I feel like I need to put on my body.. If I put my wife's name and she died tomorrow I would be married to another woman for 50 years of life with a different woman's name on my body. Anything scriptural I think I should just memorize.. It's a good conversation starter to talk about the gospel but there are other ways to do that.. Fully agree that if you apply the Leviticus verse you essentially have to apply all the other parts from the verses that come after.. And I am not against them. I just don't prefer them


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 18, 2015)

That is why you make sure you get a REAL meaningful phrase as your tattoo...an inspirational life-motto, like *"No Ragrets*" or "*Nolege is power!"*


----------



## KMK (Aug 18, 2015)

$200? Seriously? People pay others $200 to do that to their body? It seems like it should be the other way around.


----------



## Reformed Roman (Aug 18, 2015)

Lol. Needles can hurt. But the argument is they are spending two hours doing something only a rare few can do well, as well as material cost. Personally I don't see it as worth it but that's me


----------



## Edward (Aug 18, 2015)

Ilse Koch reportedly found tattooed people useful, although there is no hard evidence to support the lampshade story.


----------



## OPC'n (Aug 19, 2015)

KMK said:


> $200? Seriously? People pay others $200 to do that to their body? It seems like it should be the other way around.



Sometimes hair cuts can cost up to $200 hahahaha!


----------



## Warren (Aug 19, 2015)

Pergamum said:


> That is why you make sure you get a REAL meaningful phrase as your tattoo...an inspirational life-motto, like *"No Ragrets*" or "*Nolege is power!"*
> 
> View attachment 4276
> 
> View attachment 4277


hmm, I've wanted one on my back of an crazy-eyed, exploding chiken, molting its wings and bursting through a blue pearl in plumes of fire. I just haven't thought of a witty caption for it. Something like, "Th-th-th-that's all folks!"

maybe Veteran of The Psychic Wars 
or Sriracha Clucken Cuckoo


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 19, 2015)

I have at least 16 notable scars on my body starting down around my left ankle proceeding all the wy up to my right shoulder. A few of a those are at least 6 to 12 inches long. A few of those are from bones ripping through skin. One from an auger bit into my stomach. Why would I want to cover up so much testimony concerning God's grace in my life with a tatoo?


----------



## OPC'n (Aug 20, 2015)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I have at least 16 notable scars on my body starting down around my left ankle proceeding all the wy up to my right shoulder. A few of a those are at least 6 to 12 inches long. A few of those are from bones ripping through skin. One from an auger bit into my stomach. Why would I want to cover up so much testimony concerning God's grace in my life with a tatoo?



Sounds like you are tattooed, man! lol


----------



## alexandermsmith (Aug 20, 2015)

pergamum,

I would argue that that language is spiritual and figurative: God beautifies His people spiritually. Passages which specifically reference people's attire/clothing, such as Paul's in the NT, would seem to exclude reading that passage in Ezekiel as referring to one's actual, physical appearance/adornment.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 20, 2015)

alexandermsmith said:


> pergamum,
> 
> I would argue that that language is spiritual and figurative: God beautifies His people spiritually. Passages which specifically reference people's attire/clothing, such as Paul's in the NT, would seem to exclude reading that passage in Ezekiel as referring to one's actual, physical appearance/adornment.



Even if figurative, these are the images God gave us of him beautifying his beloved adopted one. He would not mention these images (even if figurative) if they were inherently sinful.

We also see that the gifts given to Rebekah were these:


> "...the man took a golden nose ring weighing half a shekel, and two bracelets for her (Rebekah) wrists weighing ten shekels of gold," (Genesis 24:22)



Of course, in Isaiah 3, due to God's judgment, these aids to beauty (which were abused due to vanity and immodesty) would be taken away:


> In that day the Lord will take away the finery of the anklets, the headbands, and the crescents; 19 the pendants, the bracelets, and the scarves; 20 the headdresses, the armlets, the sashes, the perfume boxes, and the amulets; 21 the signet rings and nose rings; 22 the festal robes, the mantles, the cloaks, and the handbags; 23 the mirrors, the linen garments, the turbans, and the veils.



Beauty should not only or primarily consist in the pleating of the hair or these fineries. But this does not mean that no beautification at all is permitted. Frumpiness is not necessarily next to Godliness (but can be just as prideful as ankle bracelets and nose-rings).


----------



## KMK (Aug 20, 2015)

Just this morning a panhandler asked me for money. He had several prominent tattoos. I wonder if he wished he could have the money back from those tats in his hour of need? Or do many view tats as a necessity of life like cel phones?


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Aug 20, 2015)

I guess you can't buy them used, can you.


----------



## jw (Aug 20, 2015)

Zach Rohman said:


> Fully agree that if you apply the Leviticus verse you essentially have to apply all the other parts from the verses that come after.



We "essentially have to apply" all of Scripture to our lives, according to place, station, and general equity of the moral principles involved, and that's a good thing. More poignantly to your post at hand, though, why _wouldn't_ we apply the verses which "come after" Leviticus 19? Here are the immediately proceeding verses:

29 Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.
30 Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the Lord.
31 Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the Lord your God.
32 Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the Lord.
33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.
34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.
35 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.
36 Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt.
37 Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the Lord.​
What in those, particularly, doesn't "apply'?

I had posted earlier a few sermons that broach this subject from the biblical perspective that our bodies are not our own, and that -if we understood such- as well as those principles of separation found in Leviticus 19 (and all throughout Scripture), perhaps the subject matter could be better discussed (without needless accusatory judgment for past doings, and, hopefully, a prayerful consideration that past doings may have been a breach of God's law, thus being humbled for sin, the visible reminders of those sins, and an ever-pressing to Christ and His righteousness alone). That post had been quoted with those sermons, so I figured they would still have exposure, and subsequently deleted my post.

The subject of our bodies not being our own goes far beyond tattoos, piercings, etc. and down into such things as what sports, if any, is lawful for us to be involved in, considering needless damage that is inherent with some sports, or how we employ our diets, or are we seeking to order our day in such a way that typically, providential hindrances excluded- we're getting adequate rest, or if we're spending too much time in leisure, etc. Who owns our bodies? The Lord Who gave them.

Here are the aforementioned sermons for your consideration and application, as you listen for the voice of the Shepherd, our Lord Jesus Christ, in the preaching of His Word:

1. Who Owns Our Bodies? - Modification, Tattoos, etc.
2. Who Owns our Bodies? (Concluded)


----------



## Jeffriesw (Aug 20, 2015)

DMcFadden said:


> Mention in another thread about a prominent Christian minister with "tats" got me thinking. Checking him out on Google confirmed that he does indeed have a number of tattoos on his forearms and shoulders.
> 
> How many of you have tats and why did you get them? And, if you have them, are they covered or do they show in most public activities? I'm of an older generation (located in a niche somewhere between the WWII guys who got them in the war and the Millennials who get them all over their bodies today) and confess to being more than a little perplexed/amused by the phenomenon.



I have 4 tattoo's (1 on each forearm and 1 on each bicep) that I got as a young man between the ages of 18 and 21. As a man of 49 now, I wish that I had never gotten any of them.


----------



## Warren (Aug 20, 2015)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I have at least 16 notable scars on my body starting down around my left ankle proceeding all the wy up to my right shoulder. A few of a those are at least 6 to 12 inches long. A few of those are from bones ripping through skin. One from an auger bit into my stomach. Why would I want to cover up so much testimony concerning God's grace in my life with a tatoo?


Reminds me of my friend. He's actually died, and he has no need to prove himself to anyone, because his body's been through the worst, humanly speaking. God could have testified of His goodness by killing him for his sins that led him through the grinder, but instead God saved him in his body, and now he's walking around giving praise to God alone.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 20, 2015)

I'm surprised no one brought up the "Christian's Tattoo Verse" already...

Rev.19:16 "On his robe and *on his thigh he has a name written*, King of kings and Lord of lords."

NOT AN ENDORSEMENT!
(I don't myself think the kai/and conjunction between robe and thigh means written twice or in two places, or part-by-part; but is explanatory, i.e. not just any old where on his robe was the name emblazoned, but specifically below the waist of the One on horseback, v11, plainly visible as he passes by)

Beware adopting Levitical precepts, simply because they are in the Bible. Build a different case from the NT, if you must. It is not just legal circumcision that Paul warns the church from binding itself unto.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 21, 2015)

> "On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords."



Is this not on the scabbard of His sword resting on His thigh?



> Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty (Ps 45:3)





I don't know what merit that might, or might not, have.


----------



## kodos (Aug 21, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I'm surprised no one brought up the "Christian's Tattoo Verse" already...
> 
> Rev.19:16 "On his robe and *on his thigh he has a name written*, King of kings and Lord of lords."
> 
> ...



If one must beware of using Levitical precepts, one should probably be even more wary of using something from the Apocalyptic visions of Revelation (a vision of Christ no less - a vision that includes a non-literal sword that proceeds from His mouth). 

Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Reformed Roman (Aug 21, 2015)

All of the Bible can be properly applied to us.. But that doesn't mean every command in the Bible written is a command we are bound to follow


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 21, 2015)

kodos said:


> If one must beware of using Levitical precepts, one should probably be even more wary of using something from the Apocalyptic visions of Revelation (a vision of Christ no less - a vision that includes a non-literal sword that proceeds from His mouth).
> 
> Wouldn't you agree?


I brought up the verse as a way of criticizing the misapplication of Bible verses generally, NT as well as OT. How could I have made it more obvious?

Even if Jesus has _literal_ ink, or a brand, or some other method of marking words on his skin, the fact alone would not be sufficient to promote literalist Christian imitation.

As with earrings, etc., this whole matter is a "wisdom" question, and decisions may vary without sin resulting. Rom.14:1,4. "Do not quarrel over opinions.... It is before his own master that he stands or falls."


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 21, 2015)

I was going to make a joke because obviously a lady wouldn't have one, but this is no longer obvious. Outside of a military brotherhood kind of use, the only word that comes to mind is: tacky.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 21, 2015)

I know a lady that lost a child through miscarriage. She put the imprint of the baby's little foot as a tattoo on her own feet with the baby's name as a memorial. That seemed very understandable to me. I would add this to the list of understandable/permissible reasons for such an action aside from membership in an elite military unit.

Isaiah 49:16:


> Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually before me.


----------



## kodos (Aug 21, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I brought up the verse as a way of criticizing the misapplication of Bible verses generally, NT as well as OT. How could I have made it more obvious?
> 
> Even if Jesus has _literal_ ink, or a brand, or some other method of marking words on his skin, the fact alone would not be sufficient to promote literalist Christian imitation.
> 
> As with earrings, etc., this whole matter is a "wisdom" question, and decisions may vary without sin resulting. Rom.14:1,4. "Do not quarrel over opinions.... It is before his own master that he stands or falls."



You'll have to forgive me, but it wasn't necessarily obvious to me. Evidently more red was required in the post, for the likes of someone as dense as myself 

I don't have a Biblical stance on tattoos at the moment. However, what I believe that the thread is trying to establish is whether or not the Bible has something to say regarding them. Good people on both sides of the debate have attempted to use the Scriptures. Some seem fairly convinced it is sinful, others do not. While certain passages in Leviticus are in the category of ceremonial, we not only see that there are moral applications not just to the ceremonial laws themselves (WCF 19.3), but also some passages are deemed moral in that they are eternal and unchangeable (such as "love your neighbor as yourself"). I think the discussion is pertinent to that, and cannot just be dismissed simply because Leviticus is being cited.

That was what I was getting at in reference to a quick dismissal of a passage in Leviticus as it bears on this discussion.


----------



## Miss Marple (Aug 21, 2015)

in re; the panhandler with tattoos asking for money, yesterday I dropped off a lady in my cab who apologized that she could not afford to tip. She had a very nice manicure job. 

Manicures/fingernail polish could also enter into this discussion. We weren't born with colored nails, it's vain, it costs money, etc.


----------



## KMK (Aug 21, 2015)

Miss Marple said:


> in re; the panhandler with tattoos asking for money, yesterday I dropped off a lady in my cab who apologized that she could not afford to tip. She had a very nice manicure job.
> 
> Manicures/fingernail polish could also enter into this discussion. We weren't born with colored nails, it's vain, it costs money, etc.



Exactly. And what about the panhandler with the dog? Dude, you can afford a dog but you can't afford Chicken McNuggets?


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 21, 2015)

KMK said:


> Miss Marple said:
> 
> 
> > in re; the panhandler with tattoos asking for money, yesterday I dropped off a lady in my cab who apologized that she could not afford to tip. She had a very nice manicure job.
> ...



Most dogs can supply at least 3 days' worth of meals, I would think!


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 21, 2015)

kodos said:


> but also some passages are deemed moral in that they are eternal and unchangeable (such as "*love your neighbor as yourself*").



I find some irony in your mentioning that, seeing many of the replies in this thread. I was taught to 'love the sinner, but hate the sin.' Plenty of hating the sin going on in this thread, but not much love apparent.


----------



## Reformed Roman (Aug 21, 2015)

Assumptions about people's character shouldn't be made in this situation. You could be homeless within months if you got fired, had to spend savings, etc. God could have even redeemed these people after they got tatoos.. 

I struggle with this myself, definitely, but assuming one is bad with money and everything is their fault, based on one look up and down is a mistake as Christians. More love and sympathy should be shown..

In most cases your right.. Most people are bad with money. Working at a bank I see people getting payday loans. You give a loan to get out of debt at a lower interest rate, and they use the loan money to buy a new tv.. Still.. Just like I shouldn't judge someone based on race, we shouldn't judge on social status either


----------



## kodos (Aug 21, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> kodos said:
> 
> 
> > but also some passages are deemed moral in that they are eternal and unchangeable (such as "*love your neighbor as yourself*").
> ...



I pray that isn't from anything I have said, brother. If so, forgive me.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 21, 2015)

kodos said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > kodos said:
> ...



Oh no, nothing you've said in this thread, nor in any other.


----------



## KMK (Aug 22, 2015)

Pergamum said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Miss Marple said:
> ...



Of course in the US that would get you into an entirely different form of hot water.


----------



## Edward (Aug 22, 2015)

KMK said:


> Exactly. And what about the panhandler with the dog? Dude, you can afford a dog but you can't afford Chicken McNuggets?



My daughter and I were wandering around the pedestrian district of a major German city, talking about the panhandlers. We finally concluded that the ones with the pets were likely to bring in more money than those that were just begging on their own. A fair number of dogs, some rats, at least one parrot.


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 22, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> kodos said:
> 
> 
> > but also some passages are deemed moral in that they are eternal and unchangeable (such as "*love your neighbor as yourself*").
> ...



The thread is focussing on the normative aspect of things, rather than our existential attitude to the tatooed brother or sister, or the tatooed unconverted person that comes to church or across our path. Different questions get different answers.


----------



## JimmyH (Aug 22, 2015)

Peairtach said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > kodos said:
> ...


Ahh, compartmentalizing Christianity ? I thought we 'walk in the Spirit' 24/7, to the best of our ability.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Aug 22, 2015)

**Moderation**

Thread closed.


----------

