I'm getting my first tattoo

[MissProverbs31]

i'm going to sum up this trainwreck of a thread. someone came in stating how they were excited to get a tattoo, and then some legalists came in and said it was sin.

this sums up how i feel after watching this foolishness:

Oh and this as well.

 

[twnsrkr]

If unclean animals wouldn't have counted as food, why would places like Lev. 11:4ff command not to eat it? Or would they have been eating something that wasn't food? What exactly would they have called bacon if not food?

The law was being set in place. So the do' and don'ts were being stated. Something not to be eaten was and is not considered food. There was no bacon, cause no one ate it you drongo.

Jesus says it isn't what goes into man that makes him dirty, but what comes from the heart. That covers not only food touched with dirty hands, but any thing you consume or touch (like other example of Jesus overturning purity I mentioned). If eating pork made you unclean, the entire logic of what Jesus is saying collapses. Jesus whole teaching was intended to be subversive to the idea of external purity. Here's a good summary:

A Portrait of Jesus | Jesus as Social Prophet

The Messiah's statement was in reply to the Pharisees hand washing argument, not about what you can and cannot eat.

A pargraph using logic and showing that that particular commandment lacks any.

So, you are subscribing to the belief that your intellect in greater than Gods. This is the epitome of humanism, not christianity.

There was no "he" who designed the entirety of the Torah. The Mosaic law was developed over time by multiple people.

Zing:

Deuteronomy 6:1 Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it:

Am I misunderstanding the logic of it, because you didn't actually question me on that? Shouldn't law and morality be consistent? Murder is supposed to be punished by death. Killing a slave is murder. Therefore, killing a slave should be met with death. Don't blame me for the Pentateuch's author(s) being inconsistent. Also, since you say the Mosaic law is a perfect system, it's good to know you have no problem with slavery.

Your assumptions are blinding you. The law is consistent, you just don't see it because your filling in the spaces with your assumptions.

No, I don't have a problem with biblical slavery. Modern society has just replaced it with slavery to the state and slavery to the banks. Everyone on food stamps or such a program is a slave to the state, which steals the funding from the state citizens. Likewise, most christians don't own their home or car, and are in heavy debt. They are a slave to the bank.

 

[MacFall]

How far up on the wrist will it be? Will you be able to cover it up with a cuffed shirt if you need to?

Far enough up that I can cover it up if I need to, yeah.

 

[Jupiter Drops]

If this is your first tattoo, does that mean you're going to get more?

 

[MacFall]

If this is your first tattoo, does that mean you're going to get more?

I'm not ruling out the possibility, but I have no plans for more.

 

[Jupiter Drops]

I hope it turns out great

 

[Toro]

I'm not ruling out the possibility, but I have no plans for more.

You likely will, believe it or not they can be "addictive".

Like a woman buying her first pair of shoes. Only plan to buy one pair, before she knows it.... her closets full and she tries to find a place for more.

 

[Nilloc]

The Messiah's statement was in reply to the Pharisees hand washing argument, not about what you can and cannot eat.

His statement applies to the entire purity system. Otherwise, what goes into a man does defile him.

So, you are subscribing to the belief that your intellect in greater than Gods. This is the epitome of humanism, not christianity.

I believe that the egalitarian morality of Jesus and the Enlightenment is greater than the patriarchal, racist, sexist, blood-thirsty morality of the early Hebrews. Just because they thought God commanded them to do such things doesn’t mean he did.

Zing:
Deuteronomy 6:1 Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it:

So the author of Deuteronomy claims that the entirety of the Pentateuch was given by God. How very convenient for him. Do you find the claims of the Koran to have been given by God to be as equally convincing? If the author claims to have been speaking for God, well, then he must be!

As for the Pentateuch being the product of numerous hands over a period of time, scholarship agrees:

Roland J. Faley writes: "In its present form, Lv is post-exilic, the work of the Priestly school during the period of cultic reorganization after the Exile's termination (538). The Holiness Code, which had taken on some additions during the Exile, was once more re-edited and became the nucleus of Lv. To it were added the sacrificial code (chs. 1-7), the ordination rite (chs. 8-10), and the legal purity code (chs. 11-16). Chapter 27, dealing with the commutation of vows, comes from a still later edition. The purpose of Lv was to supply directives on all aspects of religious observance for the post-exilic community, especially as they related to the Temple liturgy." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, p. 67) (source)


Jay G. Williams writes: "It is this emphasis [on one central shrine], in particular, which has led scholars to identify Deuteronomy as the scroll of the law found in the Temple during the reign of King Josiah in the seventh century. According to II Kings 22-23 this scroll led Josiah to initiate a reform of the religion of Judah which, in particular, involved the destruction of all places of sacrifice except the Temple in Jerusalem. Since only Deuteronomy, of all the books of the Torah, calls for such a reform and since it is inconceivable that such an important book of the law would have been lost after Josiah's time, it is likely that the identification of Deuteronomy as the discovered scroll is correct. The fact that Deuteronomy often reflects both the language and the thought of the eighth century prophets helps to confirm this identification." (Understanding the Old Testament, p. 137) (source)

​

Your assumptions are blinding you.

I’m afraid that’s you, friend.

No, I don't have a problem with biblical slavery.

A revealing statement if I ever heard one.

Modern society has just replaced it with slavery to the state and slavery to the banks.

No doubt. “Biblical slavery” is just as bad.

 

[twnsrkr]

His statement applies to the entire purity system. Otherwise, what goes into a man does defile him.


I believe that the egalitarian morality of Jesus and the Enlightenment is greater than the patriarchal, racist, sexist, blood-thirsty morality of the early Hebrews. Just because they thought God commanded them to do such things doesn’t mean he did.


So the author of Deuteronomy claims that the entirety of the Pentateuch was given by God. How very convenient for him. Do you find the claims of the Koran to have been given by God to be as equally convincing? If the author claims to have been speaking for God, well, then he must be!

As for the Pentateuch being the product of numerous hands over a period of time, scholarship agrees:

Roland J. Faley writes: "In its present form, Lv is post-exilic, the work of the Priestly school during the period of cultic reorganization after the Exile's termination (538). The Holiness Code, which had taken on some additions during the Exile, was once more re-edited and became the nucleus of Lv. To it were added the sacrificial code (chs. 1-7), the ordination rite (chs. 8-10), and the legal purity code (chs. 11-16). Chapter 27, dealing with the commutation of vows, comes from a still later edition. The purpose of Lv was to supply directives on all aspects of religious observance for the post-exilic community, especially as they related to the Temple liturgy." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, p. 67) (source)


Jay G. Williams writes: "It is this emphasis [on one central shrine], in particular, which has led scholars to identify Deuteronomy as the scroll of the law found in the Temple during the reign of King Josiah in the seventh century. According to II Kings 22-23 this scroll led Josiah to initiate a reform of the religion of Judah which, in particular, involved the destruction of all places of sacrifice except the Temple in Jerusalem. Since only Deuteronomy, of all the books of the Torah, calls for such a reform and since it is inconceivable that such an important book of the law would have been lost after Josiah's time, it is likely that the identification of Deuteronomy as the discovered scroll is correct. The fact that Deuteronomy often reflects both the language and the thought of the eighth century prophets helps to confirm this identification." (Understanding the Old Testament, p. 137) (source)

​

I’m afraid that’s you, friend.


A revealing statement if I ever heard one.


No doubt. “Biblical slavery” is just as bad.

Once again, your playing God, deciding that a part of the bible is too harsh for your liking. Your argument is moot, I can turn that around and say that none of the bible is confirmed cause all the writers could've just been demonic individuals like the liar Moses(by your description anyway), who were deceived into thinking God told them something. All I can be is astounded that you believe your argument to be consistent. But I'm forgetting that the bill stops with you.

 

[SweetDee]

...shortly after Christmas. I've decided on this, on my inner right wrist, facing so that it will be right-side-up from the perspective of someone who is shaking my hand.

You probably recognize the ichthys. The symbol in the middle is the chi rho, one of the oldest Christian symbols, "χρ" being the first two letters of the Greek for "Christos". It has also been used to stand for "Christus Rex", or Christ is King. Although that usage is obviously limited by the fact that the letters are Greek and the language is Latin, it still appeals to me (see my signature).

Congrats on your first tattoo! Inside of your wrist is a great spot. I want another one there as well.

 

[Nom De Guerre]

I know others whom put a Tattoo where you are for other reasons...

 

[MacFall]

*who

And I don't know what you mean.

 

[Nom De Guerre]

Egh, yeah they put it on their wrist to identify themselves to others in that way. A variety of 'sects', as it were, use it.

 

[Nilloc]

Once again, your playing God, deciding that a part of the bible is too harsh for your liking.

Since I take it you don’t accept the Book of Mormon, the Koran, etc. as being from God, does that mean you are playing God too? If you say you don’t accept those books as being from God because it contradicts what you think God is actually like, then I would say the same thing. I see God revealed in Jesus and the fact is, the Israelites attribute to God a number of things that go directly against Jesus’s teachings. The concept of purity is one of them and that closely relates with the issue of tattoos. The idea that getting a tattoo is somehow sinful is no different than saying, ‘eating x can make you unclean.’ God desires mercy and love, not sacrifice and ritual.

Also, if I’m “playing God” by deciding which parts of the Bible I take as from God, then someone can (and many have) accused Jesus, the evangelists, and Paul of doing just that. How many times do they selectively quote the OT in a way that favors their view? Matthew and Luke quote from the LXX version of Isaiah to prove the virgin birth, even though in Hebrew there was nothing about a virgin and even in the Greek, the context showed that the prophecy wasn’t about Jesus. How about when Jesus uses the title, ‘son of man’ of himself? Originally the son of man was a symbolic representation of the Maccabean rebels being given the kingdom after defeating the Syrians (Dan 7:25-27). In the Sermon on the Mount and Romans 2, Jesus and Paul say that Israel was to be light to the Gentiles (to use the Isaianic phrase), where as much of the early OT (e.g., Joshua, etc.) had the message of slaughter the Gentiles. Were Isaiah, Jesus, Paul, and the Gospel writers “playing God” (well, Jesus was God, but you know what I mean)?

Your argument is moot, I can turn that around and say that none of the bible is confirmed cause all the writers could've just been demonic individuals like the liar Moses(by your description anyway), who were deceived into thinking God told them something. All I can be is astounded that you believe your argument to be consistent.

My argument is consistent. Neither I, nor any rational person, would think that God actually spoke to someone just because that person claimed so. I don’t believe, say, the four Gospels just because the authors claim that everything in them is true. Whoever wrote the Gospel of Thomas would say the exact same thing. I believe the Gospels are generally accurate in what Jesus said and did because of evidence (given by scholars like N.T. Wright and Richard Bauckham), not because a fideist position regarding the authors’ truthfulness.

In regards to something like the Pentateuch, while certainly being important for Jewish theology, it clearly contradicts the prophets, Jesus, and Paul in numerous areas, mostly in depiction of God and his intentions. There’s little evidence that the events of the Pentateuch are even historical. The exodus probably did happen, though not as actually depicted in the book (there’s mythologizing to the oral stories that would have been passed down through the Hebrews in the form of legends, exaggerations, etc.). Thus when a document that, while useful and belonging in the Bible, is shown not to be depicting historical events and contradicts later writings that have far better credibility, what do you view as the most logical view to take?

 

[Keri]

Not even. This, my friends, is what we call a misuse of Scripture.

Just as I have said that 32 verses before this one, when people use it, it is also a misuse of scripture... yet you disagree with me there. :/

 

[Keri]

Yep. I thought of red, but black is cheaper, and colors don't age well.

Well made coloured inks age fine. Also, how you take care of it is a factor.

I've been taking several insulin shots a day for 18 years now. I'm used to needles. Obviously it's a bit different, but I think I can deal with it.

I've been getting recommendations from friends on the best shops. There are a few that have great, long-standing reputations for cleanliness and quality around here.

As for pain. I have two tattoos on my inner wrists and they were both second in scale of painfulness. My foot tattoo was the worst, wrists second, forearm third, ankle fourth and honestly the sternum and neck didn't hurt at all.

D, as for the design, I love it. I love the meaning it has for you, the location and purpose. Nice choice.

 

[twnsrkr]

Just as I have said that 32 verses before this one, when people use it, it is also a misuse of scripture... yet you disagree with me there. :/

I'm not able to find the verse you speak of, but I assume it has to do with gays? What about these?

1Co 6:9 ¶ Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

 

[true2theword]

Congratulations. Le 19:28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am God.

young men find it necessary to conform to the ways of this world and to its pagan roots