Tattoos

[I'ddie4him]

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?

Good points there Splayd.
Keep em coming.

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.

Dag,

There are a total of 613 laws spelled out in the Bible and this one is by far the most uncertain one there is.
I have to wonder why the rest of Lev 19 isn't being followed as stricly as this one is ??

I've asked many many times and not received a suitable answer, Maybe cause there isn't one.

Lev 19:28 is specifically speaking of cutting or marking ones body for the DEAD. This was a pagan ritual centuries ago where the body was cremated in a funeral pyre and the ashes cut into the flesh for remembrance.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the tattoos nowdays. That somehow keeps being ignored repeatedly. I find it very convenient that this is done.

We will never win this argument as long as Scripture is being twisted and misinterpreted to further one's stance or try to win an argument that is based in fallacious theories to start with.

 

[TasManOfGod]

Well as there is no problem, that'd be appropriate.

Well the problem is there is a problem and those that are causing it apparently dont know that there is or surely they wouldn't be doing it.

In fairness - I understand your perspective and I respect your conviction.

thank you

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?

In your opinion it doesn't warrant it. If there was only one young Christian who avoided marking themselves for life and giving themselves a lifetime of regret, I would consider that my efforts, no matter what it has cost me, have not been in vain

Surely your energy would be better spent reaching the lost and edifying the body. No?

Reaching the misguided -reaching the lost -to me it is all the same

 

[Inperfected]

There are a total of 613 laws spelled out in the Bible and this one is by far the most uncertain one there is.
I have to wonder why the rest of Lev 19 isn't being followed as stricly as this one is ??

I've asked many many times and not received a suitable answer, Maybe cause there isn't one.

Lev 19:28 is specifically speaking of cutting or marking ones body for the DEAD. This was a pagan ritual centuries ago where the body was cremated in a funeral pyre and the ashes cut into the flesh for remembrance.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the tattoos nowdays. That somehow keeps being ignored repeatedly. I find it very convenient that this is done.

We will never win this argument as long as Scripture is being twisted and misinterpreted to further one's stance or try to win an argument that is based in fallacious theories to start with.

I 100% agree with this statement. I have had this used against me, often infact. But I still view this with the above viewpoint.

 

[TasManOfGod]

Surely the Torah complient Jews are the ones who know how to interpret Leviticus. It would be news to me if they think it (Lev 19:28) doesn't apply to them today.

 

[Inperfected]

Reaching the misguided -reaching the lost -to me it is all the same

I think the comment was specifially meaning 'lost' as in people who are not Christians.

Now me, I agree with having tattoo's as long as the motives are right. I am currently thinking of getting a tattoo either a wedding ring tattoo (on my finger) or two rings on my back.

 

[TasManOfGod]

I think the comment was specifially meaning 'lost' as in people who are not Christians.

Now me, I agree with having tattoo's as long as the motives are right. I am currently thinking of getting a tattoo either a wedding ring tattoo (on my finger) or two rings on my back.

Perhaps you may consider the alternative of removable jewellry and a screenprinted tee shirt

 

[Inperfected]

I may consider that... But they are removable. I personally like the permanent reminder of the fact that I cannot take off my marriage. QUOTE:Surely the Torah complient Jews are the ones who know how to interpret Leviticus. It would be news to me if they think it (Lev 19:28) doesn't apply to them today. Indeed, but do they also believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah?

 

[TasManOfGod]

I may consider that... But they are removable. I personally like the permanent reminder of the fact that I cannot take off my marriage. QUOTE:Surely the Torah complient Jews are the ones who know how to interpret Leviticus. It would be news to me if they think it (Lev 19:28) doesn't apply to them today. Indeed, but do they also believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah?

Are you suggesting that God is just looking after the Jews and wants them to live a holy life but doesn't give a hoot what followers of Jesus do to themselves. Hey where do you find that in the Bible?

 

[Splayd]

As much as I have great respect and regard for Orthodox Jews, it seems to me that if they were so good at understanding their scriptures, they'd recognise their Messiah in them.

I think there's a great deal to learn from them but very often their interpretation of laws is overly complicated and more about Talmud than Torah. Jesus had this very issue with them when He walked among them. Compare His teaching on law to the Pharisees and you'll soon see that while they had much right, Jesus wasn't a fan of their extrabiblical burdens and legalistic interpretations. To my mind - their stance on tattoos is one such example.

 

[TheDag]

Well I think you will find what you want on my post here

In the post you mentioned several categories. However it doesn't explain which laws fall into which category and how that is decided. For example marking oneself was a pagan practice. So how do we know that Lev 19:28 no longer applies as that relates to pagan rituals. How do we decide it is or isn't a pagan practice from Egypt? They are the kind of explanations I'm looking for. As I said it is easy to tell the food laws but others aren't so clear. How do we decide?

God has not told me I shouldn't get a tattoo. I don't have a tattoo and don't plan on getting one either. I just can't find anything that says tatoos are not ok. The only time I would say a tattoo is not ok is if it is something unholy. Then it would be what the tattoo actually is that is the problem not the tattoo itself.

 

[InTheFlame]

Surely the Torah complient Jews are the ones who know how to interpret Leviticus. It would be news to me if they think it (Lev 19:28) doesn't apply to them today.

Hmmmm... so they don't interpret other laws in Leviticus as applying to them today, is that right?

 

[TasManOfGod]

Hmmmm... so they don't interpret other laws in Leviticus as applying to them today, is that right?

They should comply completely and that is not my point. I was trying to show that the Hebrew for "marking" includes the process of tattooing

 

[TasManOfGod]

In the post you mentioned several categories. However it doesn't explain which laws fall into which category and how that is decided. For example marking oneself was a pagan practice. So how do we know that Lev 19:28 no longer applies as that relates to pagan rituals. How do we decide it is or isn't a pagan practice from Egypt? They are the kind of explanations I'm looking for. As I said it is easy to tell the food laws but others aren't so clear. How do we decide?

God has not told me I shouldn't get a tattoo. I don't have a tattoo and don't plan on getting one either. I just can't find anything that says tatoos are not ok. The only time I would say a tattoo is not ok is if it is something unholy. Then it would be what the tattoo actually is that is the problem not the tattoo itself.

If what I have said so far has not convinced you that when God says marking the flesh is unholy then marking the flesh is unholy that I don't think any more of my words will make much difference to you. Might I suggest that you just feel comfortable in marking yourself as much as you like and I will pray that God actually sees that perhaps He made a mistake.

 

[Splayd]

Hey Tas -

I'm not going to mess you around with seemingly obscure and unrelated commandments in Leviticus, but I would ask your comment on the verse that immediately precedes this one:

Lev 19:27 You shall not shave around the sides of your heads, neither shall you disfigure the corners of your beard.

I'm curious as to your stand on this because I see a very strong correlation between this commandment and the issue at hand. Quite simply - I'd ask you if you believe shaving to be a sin. If not, why not and does the verse have any relevance today at all?

 

[TasManOfGod]

Hey Tas -

I'm not going to mess you around with seemingly obscure and unrelated commandments in Leviticus, but I would ask your comment on the verse that immediately precedes this one:

Lev 19:27 You shall not shave around the sides of your heads, neither shall you disfigure the corners of your beard.

I'm curious as to your stand on this because I see a very strong correlation between this commandment and the issue at hand. Quite simply - I'd ask you if you believe shaving to be a sin. If not, why not and does the verse have any relevance today at all?

You have to understand that the Law was given to guide God's people coming out of captivity in Egypt and that they would have bought with them many of the customs and traits from there perhaps unwittingly identifying themselves with pagan practises. The hair and beard style could well have been one of those.
It would be kind of like if God gave the Law (a set of rules to abide by) in the present day He might also list that believers shouldn't get themselves a spike, Mohawk or number 0 hairstyle to be holy because of the identification factor.

 

[Splayd]

You have to understand that the Law was given to guide God's people coming out of captivity in Egypt and that they would have bought with them many of the customs and traits from there perhaps unwittingly identifying themselves with pagan practises. The hair and beard style could well have been one of those.

Absolutely! I agree. I see both commandments coming from this same place and I see both commandments as relevant today.

I'm sure you probably agree that it's not the actual act of shaving that was a sin, but the fact that the manner in which it was done was a continuation of a pagan practice and identified them as such. Likewise, the following command about marking the flesh is addressing a continuation of a pagan practice. In fact - while the shaving commandment doesn't even include any disclaimers at all, the flesh marking one does. It specifies exactly what it's talking about and it's got nothing to do with decorating the skin with ink and everything to do with a particular pagan practice.

Despite that fact there are many that would insist that the latter command is still relevant in a broadly encompassing way while the former isn't as it addressed a specific cultural relvance. Ironically, the evidence works better the other way around. They also like to use verses indicating that the body is the temple to back up their conclusion, but such verses are equally relevant to the commandment regarding shaving. I'd suggest they are being inconsistent.

 

[TheDag]

If what I have said so far has not convinced you that when God says marking the flesh is unholy then marking the flesh is unholy that I don't think any more of my words will make much difference to you. Might I suggest that you just feel comfortable in marking yourself as much as you like and I will pray that God actually sees that perhaps He made a mistake.

Ok so this post confirms that you are just here to condemn people and not teach. If you were here to teach then it is hard to understand why you would use sarcasm.

As Splayd pointed out there is nothing at all to suggest that Lev 19:28 has a different context to Lev 19:27. You have told us we should read it as it is written yet you refuse to read it as written because it doesn't suit you to read verse 27 that way.

 

[TasManOfGod]

It would be kind of like if God gave the Law (a set of rules to abide by) in the present day He might also list that believers shouldn't get themselves a spike, Mohawk or number 0 hairstyle to be holy because of the identification factor.

Absolutely! I agree. I see both commandments coming from this same place and I see both commandments as relevant today.

I'm sure you probably agree that it's not the actual act of shaving that was a sin, but the fact that the manner in which it was done was a continuation of a pagan practice and identified them as such. Likewise, the following command about marking the flesh is addressing a continuation of a pagan practice. In fact - while the shaving commandment doesn't even include any disclaimers at all, the flesh marking one does. It specifies exactly what it's talking about and it's got nothing to do with decorating the skin with ink and everything to do with a particular pagan practice.

Despite that fact there are many that would insist that the latter command is still relevant in a broadly encompassing way while the former isn't as it addressed a specific cultural relvance. Ironically, the evidence works better the other way around. They also like to use verses indicating that the body is the temple to back up their conclusion, but such verses are equally relevant to the commandment regarding shaving. I'd suggest they are being inconsistent.

No To carry my present day analogy further , if He included -"oh and dont do tats-this is the Lord speaking" -then in 3000 + years hence would it not be interpreted that doing tats was a no no whether you came out of a gang , or were in the navy or whatever, it was still a no no

 

[Splayd]

So then - it is still a no no to shave?

 

[Splayd]

Then where's the consistency in your understanding?

These are either broad, general commands or they take into account the details. Let's consider them together.

Verse 27 either condemns shaving altogether or it addresses shaving a certain way for a certain reason. The verse itself only gives us part of the answer. It distinguishes part of the way (ie: sides of the head and corners of the beard).

Verse 28 either condemns marking the skin altogether or it addresses marking the skin in a certain way for a certain reason. The verse itself provides more information on both aspects (ie: branding, for the dead).

To assume the former is specific and the latter is generic is to ignore the evidence and to contradict your approach to the matter. Further, if it's a general condemnation of marking the skin does it include make-up, writing notes on the back of your hand etc...? Or is it the cutting/burning that's the issue ruling out medical procedures? Or is it the permanance of the mark that matters like when a surgeon leaves a scar? Somewhere along the way context needs to be considered. Does the context provided equate in any way with a young woman getting a wedding band tattooed on her finger? I think not.