-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Tattoos
- Thread starter Gumpy
- Start date
Dasdream
Noone's perfect, so why are we judging each other
- Jul 18, 2006
- 4,726
- 48
- 41
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
what I was trying to say or my point was that if everyone feels that drugs and tatooes and piercings ect. are ok, why not go to a crack house ( a house or apartment that sells and make all sorts of drugs) and go to bars (where we will find drunkards and alot of tatooed/pierced people) and make them deacons? I am being sarcastic. Wel hey if everyone feels it is ok, then there is no prbelm in making them part of church staff...again being sarcastic, but I'm trying to make a point.....somewhere.
Upvote
0
I think it needs to be stressed how people likeminded to myself do not "attack" people with tattoos as many good God fearing people have them as a legacy of the place that they have been. My greatest concern is the Christians who want to go back to "Egypt" and moreso the ones who say "hey it's not too bad back here -look at all the things we can play with" and so influence others to go somewhere they have never been nor should ever go.
Upvote
0
I do not think there is anything quite like tattoos that if you found out later that God thought what you did was unholy the affects of regret could be so devestating and long lasting. For that reason I suppose it needs straight talking that people might "think before they leap"
Upvote
0
I know several people who have not regretted it a decade later. There is npo doubt that some do regret it but not all do.
Upvote
0
It sure seems like an attack. After all with this post you are saying if you don't agree with me then you are going against the bible. I don't have a tattoo but I read the bible and it says God will mark us yet it says do not mark. So God is going to do something he instructed us not to do? I doubt it. If you have a credible source that shows the interpretation others have given is incorrect please show it to us. We may not have considered it before. If not then make sure it is opinion and not telling people they are unbiblical if they disagree. Maybe I have misunderstood you but that is how I read your posts. Remember without tone of voice and body language it is easier to misunderstand and therefore we need more words to make things clear when posting.
Upvote
0
There needs to be a voice heard in Christian circles in these latter days, (about the unholinress of tattoos), otherwise the only voice that will be heard is that there is no problems with having them.
Upvote
0
Well as there is no problem, that'd be appropriate.
In fairness - I understand your perspective and I respect your conviction. What does concern me though, is the extent of your campaign. Between your tag, sig and requests for anti-tatt forums aren't you concerned that you may be a tad obsessive regarding a matter that doesn't warrant it? Surely your energy would be better spent reaching the lost and edifying the body. No?
Upvote
0
I believe that this thread is getting out of hand, and partly due to my fault. This thread has left the area of Christian advise and is now in the realm of theological debate. As such I do no believe this is the right area to be debateing as we are.
It is clear that none of us that are takeing part in this argument is going to change their mind. I am going to make one last post here explaining my view then I will not post on this thread again to debate. If you wish to debate this further, then it would be my advise to take the debate to theology.
As I said before, I do not have a tattoo, not do I plan on getting one. My entire point is this entire debate was to show that we must investigate the scriptures to determine what they realy mean. In this case I, who had been against tattos, studues the scripture that supported my view and found that it did not say what I thought it did. When I looked at the Hebrew of the text I found that it was not talking about tattoos at all, but branding. We cannot simply take the word of a man as to what scripture means. We should always use our God given ability to think in order to rightly divide the word of God.
I also wanted to show that there are more then one way to look at things and we must consider them all. It is possible to believe in an unchageing God who acts differently according to different situations. It is possible for a person to not ignore scripture but not follow your interpretation of it. It is possible to use all of scripture for learning and discipline, but not follow every word of it.
I do not believe that the old testiment should be thrown out, but we must take it in context. It is a history of God's will and man's reaction to it. It is a history of God's redemptive plan. There is not a new plan now, we are redeamed by the same plan that God had in mind when he made that promise promise to Eve all those years ago. The plan, however, is progressive. What the Israelites had could not save them. But what we have now does.
This is the context that we must view the old testiment through. The people that the law was written to were part of the plan, but it was written for a time when the plan had not been fulfilled. The law it's self continued to progress throughout the old testiment from the simple comandments given to Noah to the complex set of laws given to Moses to the explaination of the law through the prophets.
It is easy to assume that what Israel had was the completed law, but it was just as easy for Noah to believe that of the law he was given. This was not true. In Genesis 9:6 Noah was told that whoever sheds the blood of a man shall be put to death. But later God tells Moses that only those who murder a man shall be put to death. The law was not changed, but refined. What apeared to be sinnful under the incomplete law of Noah (such as killing is self defense and accidental killing) was in fact never sinful. It is just that the law was incomplete. How then do we know that the law of Moses was not incomplete as well? We do not. In fact we are given reason to believe that it wasn't complete. Hebrews 10:1 tells us that the law was a shadow of what was to come. How can this be explained as anything accept that the law was not the fullness of the law? Jesus showed us that is was more important to do good on the sabbath then to worry about not working working. This is just one example of Jesus refineing the meaning of the law.
If the law was incomplete, then it is very possible that some of the things that may have seemed sinful under the law given to Moses may very well be like some of the things that seemed sinful under the law given to Noah. In other words it was not sinnful at all. If this is the case then we should study carefuly the laws given to Moses and compare them to the teachings of Jesus to understand them fully.
How then can we know that the instruction that Jesus has given us is not also incomplete? Jesus told us that he came to fulfill the law. The law could not be fulfilled if it is not complete.
It is clear that none of us that are takeing part in this argument is going to change their mind. I am going to make one last post here explaining my view then I will not post on this thread again to debate. If you wish to debate this further, then it would be my advise to take the debate to theology.
As I said before, I do not have a tattoo, not do I plan on getting one. My entire point is this entire debate was to show that we must investigate the scriptures to determine what they realy mean. In this case I, who had been against tattos, studues the scripture that supported my view and found that it did not say what I thought it did. When I looked at the Hebrew of the text I found that it was not talking about tattoos at all, but branding. We cannot simply take the word of a man as to what scripture means. We should always use our God given ability to think in order to rightly divide the word of God.
I also wanted to show that there are more then one way to look at things and we must consider them all. It is possible to believe in an unchageing God who acts differently according to different situations. It is possible for a person to not ignore scripture but not follow your interpretation of it. It is possible to use all of scripture for learning and discipline, but not follow every word of it.
I do not believe that the old testiment should be thrown out, but we must take it in context. It is a history of God's will and man's reaction to it. It is a history of God's redemptive plan. There is not a new plan now, we are redeamed by the same plan that God had in mind when he made that promise promise to Eve all those years ago. The plan, however, is progressive. What the Israelites had could not save them. But what we have now does.
This is the context that we must view the old testiment through. The people that the law was written to were part of the plan, but it was written for a time when the plan had not been fulfilled. The law it's self continued to progress throughout the old testiment from the simple comandments given to Noah to the complex set of laws given to Moses to the explaination of the law through the prophets.
It is easy to assume that what Israel had was the completed law, but it was just as easy for Noah to believe that of the law he was given. This was not true. In Genesis 9:6 Noah was told that whoever sheds the blood of a man shall be put to death. But later God tells Moses that only those who murder a man shall be put to death. The law was not changed, but refined. What apeared to be sinnful under the incomplete law of Noah (such as killing is self defense and accidental killing) was in fact never sinful. It is just that the law was incomplete. How then do we know that the law of Moses was not incomplete as well? We do not. In fact we are given reason to believe that it wasn't complete. Hebrews 10:1 tells us that the law was a shadow of what was to come. How can this be explained as anything accept that the law was not the fullness of the law? Jesus showed us that is was more important to do good on the sabbath then to worry about not working working. This is just one example of Jesus refineing the meaning of the law.
If the law was incomplete, then it is very possible that some of the things that may have seemed sinful under the law given to Moses may very well be like some of the things that seemed sinful under the law given to Noah. In other words it was not sinnful at all. If this is the case then we should study carefuly the laws given to Moses and compare them to the teachings of Jesus to understand them fully.
How then can we know that the instruction that Jesus has given us is not also incomplete? Jesus told us that he came to fulfill the law. The law could not be fulfilled if it is not complete.
Upvote
0
I personally would rather hear an unbiased view that gives both sides of the argument. I have heard both sides of the argument. With study I have found no place in the bible that prohibits tattoos. Does that mean tattoos are ok? not neccesarily. Am I a little upset that you would say that I and others are rationalizing away the word of God yet you aren't when you explain that certain verses don't need to be followed. I have not yet seen how you decide which OT commands to follow and which ones not to follow despite requests. It makes me wonder do you seek to condemn us or teach us? If it is teach then explain. If it is to condemn then don't worry about explaining. I await your answer. If you don't have an answer feel free to say that as well.
Upvote
0
So how many christians do you know that think drug use is ok? I personally know none and I've met an awful lot of christians. To suggest that if people think tattoos are the same then they must think drugs are ok is insulting and as the saying goes comparing apples and oranges.
Upvote
0
In fairness I do know of some christians that think drug use is ok. Some on these forums have said as much, but that's beside the point. You are right to make the distinction that acceptance of one thing doesn't equate with acceptance of everything. There are many many christians who see no problem with tattoos who would be very offended to find that in some people's eyes that implied they also condoned illicit/recreational drug use. Personally - I have a tattoo. I got it since becoming a christian but I am very much against drug-use and such.
Upvote
0
It is strange to me that people have no problem accepting that drug use is not OK with only a vague reference to "pharmakia" (sp) in the Old Testament but that tattoos are somehow acceptable when God's unacceptance is spelled out a lot more clearly.
Another point:
I think history will show how sad was the period when a lot of Christians got tattoos because they thought it was cool and even were critical of those who warned them against it.
Another point:
I think history will show how sad was the period when a lot of Christians got tattoos because they thought it was cool and even were critical of those who warned them against it.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
