Can Baptists Get Tattoos?

[AndOne]

No way that's like another 6 years. I have waited longer than most everyone else got them right out of boot. It is going on my back shoulder blade. So it will be covered in uniform. We are sailors we all have tattoos just not on the hands or neck everything else is fine.

I only want 3 tattoos 2 have to do with my faith and testimony the 3rd will be for my child when I have one.

I wasn't saying you should wait on getting a tattoo - just one that closely resembles the chief's rank insignia such as the one you posted on the thread. It's your call though...

 

[TamaraLynne]

I don't have any tattoos and I have not in any way thought they were wrong to have. I have looked at beautiful tattoos but have not found one that I would want to have for a lifetime . I like color and I have heard that tattoos fade so they need to get touched up. i'm not sure i would want to repeat the process over and over again to keep it beautiful. i think I'm better off getting into artwork that goes on a wall or a table that way if I get bored with it I can put it away for awhile then bring it back out later down the road and admire it again.

 

[Bella Vita]

I wasn't saying you should wait on getting a tattoo - just one that closely resembles the chief's rank insignia such as the one you posted on the thread. It's your call though...

It's fine a bunch of people have anchors it's a huge symbol for the Navy as a whole not just chiefs.

But mine is for the scripture as well as the Navy. Hebrews 16:9 "Hope is an anchor for the soul firm and secure".

 

[Chuck70]

It's fine a bunch of people have anchors it's a huge symbol for the Navy as a whole not just chiefs.

But mine is for the scripture as well as the Navy. Hebrews 16:9 "Hope is an anchor for the soul firm and secure".

For me, I'd have a problem with a tattoo for two reasons. One is the "image" matter and the stereotyped message it sends.

“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” (Ge 9:6 KJV)

Here the image of God is used in conjunction with our physical body, though the usual thought is a spiritual matter. We are in God's image. Then we have this stated of Jesus Christ:

“Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:” (Col 1:15 AV)

For the life of me, I cannot imagine Jesus with a tattoo! The second reason is tattoos around the world have historically been connected with idolatry, so to import that into our faith a foreign element which someone has already mentioned the principle:

Deut. 12:30, "do not inquire concerning their gods, saying, 'How did these nations worship their gods? I also want to do the same.'"

I can see someone having a tattoo before being a Christian, but for me, it is a mark of spiritual immaturity once being a Christian to desire a tattoo even if a Bible verse is inscribed on it. Of course, this is under "soul liberty" and Romans 14.

Chuck

 

[AndOne]

It's fine a bunch of people have anchors it's a huge symbol for the Navy as a whole not just chiefs.

But mine is for the scripture as well as the Navy. Hebrews 16:9 "Hope is an anchor for the soul firm and secure".

I have the chief's anchor with the following verse attached to it: "And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant" - Matt 20:27 KJV

...and I still think it was prideful to get it - LOL - but it is quite appropriate I think... I think of that verse every time I put the uniform on. That's what I think leadership is all about..

 

[Bella Vita]

For me, I'd have a problem with a tattoo for two reasons. One is the "image" matter and the stereotyped message it sends.

“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” (Ge 9:6 KJV)

Here the image of God is used in conjunction with our physical body, though the usual thought is a spiritual matter. We are in God's image. Then we have this stated of Jesus Christ:

“Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:” (Col 1:15 AV)

For the life of me, I cannot imagine Jesus with a tattoo! The second reason is tattoos around the world have historically been connected with idolatry, so to import that into our faith a foreign element which someone has already mentioned the principle:

Deut. 12:30, "do not inquire concerning their gods, saying, 'How did these nations worship their gods? I also want to do the same.'"

I can see someone having a tattoo before being a Christian, but for me, it is a mark of spiritual immaturity once being a Christian to desire a tattoo even if a Bible verse is inscribed on it. Of course, this is under "soul liberty" and Romans 14.

Chuck

I disagree it has nothing to do with my spiritual maturity at all. I know strong Christians with tattoos it doesn't take away from their ministry. The simple fact is tattoos are becoming a huge part of culture they just weren't in Jesus day so we can not say he wouldn't have one. As long as my heart and motivations are in the right place then that's all that matters.

Your opinion is your but I believe tattoos are a personal choice for the individual.

 

[Bella Vita]

I have the chief's anchor with the following verse attached to it: "And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant" - Matt 20:27 KJV

...and I still think it was prideful to get it - LOL - but it is quite appropriate I think... I think of that verse every time I put the uniform on. That's what I think leadership is all about..

That's awesome you should post a pic I love Navy tattoos they are the best! Hooyah Navy!

 

[98cwitr]

...

 

[Hammster]

Does you church have zero artwork in it? Do you have a depiction of Christ in the form of wood or plaster?

It's not worth it.

 

[98cwitr]

It's not worth it.

You're right.

 

[Fireinfolding]

For me, I'd have a problem with a tattoo for two reasons. One is the "image" matter and the stereotyped message it sends.

“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” (Ge 9:6 KJV)

Here the image of God is used in conjunction with our physical body, though the usual thought is a spiritual matter. We are in God's image. Then we have this stated of Jesus Christ:

“Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:” (Col 1:15 AV)

For the life of me, I cannot imagine Jesus with a tattoo! The second reason is tattoos around the world have historically been connected with idolatry, so to import that into our faith a foreign element which someone has already mentioned the principle:

Deut. 12:30, "do not inquire concerning their gods, saying, 'How did these nations worship their gods? I also want to do the same.'"

I can see someone having a tattoo before being a Christian, but for me, it is a mark of spiritual immaturity once being a Christian to desire a tattoo even if a Bible verse is inscribed on it. Of course, this is under "soul liberty" and Romans 14.

Chuck

Me neither,

I cant see Jesus saying, DUDE look what I am sporting, I got me one of these among the Gentiles and Im just so digging it' lol

Its whats in the heart man, "paint em' up" for My Father, He digs it'

 

[David Pratt]

[Below are the only “tattoos” we Christians should want to have…]


King James Version Bible


Revelation Chapter 7

3. Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.


Revelation Chapter 22

3. And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

4. And they shall see his face; and his name [shall be] in their foreheads.


Revelation Chapter 3

12. Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, [which is] new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and [I will write upon him] my new name.

 

[ChaseWind]

[Below are the only “tattoos” we Christians should want to have…]


King James Version Bible


Revelation Chapter 7

3. Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.


Revelation Chapter 22

3. And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

4. And they shall see his face; and his name [shall be] in their foreheads.


Revelation Chapter 3

12. Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, [which is] new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and [I will write upon him] my new name.

Now this makes Bible sense to me.

 

[Hammster]

I wonder if we should start a list of things that Jesus wouldn't do that are accepted norms today? That way, we could be real legalistic.

 

[ChaseWind]

I wonder if we should start a list of things that Jesus wouldn't do that are accepted norms today? That way, we could be real legalistic.

That is a good point. Maybe this sort of question can be understood better using a more 'language of today' type translation. From two perspectives:

“You become a Jew by who you are. It’s the mark of God on your heart, not of a knife on your skin, that makes a Jew. And recognition comes from God, not legalistic critics.” Rom 2:29 Eugene Peterson's Message

“Just because something is technically legal doesn’t mean that it’s spiritually appropriate. If I went around doing whatever I thought I could get by with, I’d be a slave to my whims.” 1 Cor. 6:12 Message

 

[Fireinfolding]

I wonder if we should start a list of things that Jesus wouldn't do that are accepted norms today? That way, we could be real legalistic.

Or maybe an all things are lawful thread but not all things beneficial or something

This picture would fit the theme of this other thread on CF, where the OP said their church wanted to do an "outreach for Jesus Christ the Lord" by showing a James Bond movie.

What surprised me most was there was only one member of the church opposed to doing this.

Now I (personally) cant even imagine the Holy Ghost ever prompting the holy apostles into ever doing such a thing (even if such technology was available to them to do it).

Using a hollywood James Bond movie as an outreach tool for Jesus Christ the Lord? Only to discuss "the movie" afterward? But I would probrobly ask, discuss "what" about the movie? I cant imagine a church guided by the Holy Ghost would believe Jesus would promote the womanizing (or the fornicating lifestyle) James Bond is associated with. Or the violence and all the rest. So either they would be speaking for it (in approval of it) or against it (in disapproval of it) afterward. I wouldnt know. However in using it they would seem to have set themselves up. And this in (watching first) the glamorized version of it. So if they speak for it, those things wouldnt be something our Lord would do. Yet if you speak against it afterward (in using it as a tool for outreach) the deceitfulness of the glamorized version (and the lusts it glamorizes) would probrobly dull the ears of those they were actually trying to reach.

There are certain things I myself dont get (concerning the reasons for doing such things like that). I would have definately agreed with the one member who actually stood up and objected (and who seemingly made himself a prey actually). I mean why should all agree on "the showing of" an ungodly movie laden with the lusts and violence of a fictional character in the house of God? Then target him (as if theres something wrong with him) when there could be something right about him (in truth). After all those who want to live godly in Christ are they which are persecuted, not they that live otherwise. So I cant see how this one casting their voice to the contrary (and in accord with what I believe the Spirit of the living God would do) be scrutinized for doing so. I just cant see some overseer praying and coming out of that time of prayer with the Holy Ghost indicating that a James Bond movie would be a great idea in the Fathers house. Yet it would be the guy standing up (and opposed) to such the thing who becomes the victim of their rant.

I was sorta taken back by that (I must say). I thought, man, only one member was opposed to this?