How many "Tats" and why?

[KMK]

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

 

[Reformed Roman]

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]

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

 

[OPC'n]

$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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Joshua]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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.

 

[Rom]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Rom]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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

 

[JimmyH]

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]

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

 

[Rom]

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.

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

 

[JimmyH]

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.

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

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

 

[KMK]

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?

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

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