• 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

D

day time

Guest
The part that I bolded shows you are not getting it. Did jesus curse people when he cursed the fig tree? Your logic says Jesus did because people can get food from a fig tree and without that fig tree there they would not be able to get food from it. Therefore it affects people and must be cursing people. i don't think that is how the passage is meant to be understood. it is possible to curse things without cursing people. You have taken what someone prayed about getting rid of ignorance and then claim that he is cursing people. i never said he didn't use the word curse (although I think it was a poor choice of word) I just said he did not curse people.
My logic is saying his curse affects people because that is what he said and he mentioned people within it directly. You are comparing apples and oranges (no pun intended lol). He tells people to deface His Temple no more, that those who love ignorance should shudder terribly at His judgement, that it will come ... he mentions people time and again under his "curse upon ignorance".

He's mentioning people. My logic says he's tying the curse to people, because he mentions how it will tie to people.

The following quote shows your claim that he is cursing people.
That quote of mine shows where I am *asking him about WHY he would curse* --- because I'm wanting to know, and not just assume, he would seek to indirectly/directly curse possibly even himself. It's why I use if/then and then ask the question: why ?

You also need to take into consideration the comment made by WM which says Note the use of the phrase i bolded. From the words so called we can see he doesn't really mean a curse in the sense you take it to mean. That is also shown by the quote marks around the word curse. When jesus is talking to his disciples and says whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven that is essentially what is being spoken off here. WM is binding ignorance of God's will. yes that affects him as he has acknowledged he is not perfect and does not know God's will on every single matter. So wanting to get rid of ignorance of God's will is a good thing. Surely you agree. yet you are questioning why he would want to do such a thing when you ask the question Why?
More strawmen .... I never one time questioned why he would want to get rid of ignorance of God's will. You keep saying I am saying that .... but you can't show me where I said that.

Now I'd like to show you something that perhaps you'll see ---- right here in your post, you say that his binding of ignorance will affect him as he has acknowledged he is not perfect, etc and so forth. So it would seem that you made the same connection I was making, in regards to the effect on people, since he would be considered a person ..... right ? You are saying that it will effect him ... and he's a person. So from your won connecting, you see how it will effect people. I'm just not removing his continued use of the word "curse" like you are. In fact, you said he was guilty of poor phrasing perhaps. I never even said he was "guilty" of a single thing. He said it was "in essence cursing", "indirectly SEEKING a curse", "yes it's a curse", "my so called 'curse' " ..... I am wanting to understand his desire to create any kind of curse whatsoever that would effect people either directly, indirectly, whatever. Again .... he mentions people, and you made the connection yourself that it would effect him.

I'm responding to his points, but you're not responding to my simple question to you of why this is having this effect on *you* to where you are trying to explain away something THAT I HAVENT EVEN JUDGED AS GOOD OR BAD, GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY. I'm *asking* to learn about him and his desire to curse and why he'd want to effect people that way. It is interesting to me to see people's reasoning.

I don't understand why bringing his curse out into the light for complete examination is creating all this projecting and strawmen. Some of us actually ask questions when we have a question, and make statements when we want to make statements .... directly. You don't have to look into our words to find meanings that aren't there, sometimes they are actually right there. In other words, not all of us say one thing but mean another, but you keep claiming to know my logic, my opinion, and my judgements when I've made no statement of my opinion, my judgements, and the logic I used which you tried to discredit .. you, yourself, used as well to explain how it will effect him. I'm probing the curse and the one seeking it because I'm interested in understanding. This is called *questioning* ... it's one way people get to know each other rather than assume they know each other and continue to create illusions in their own minds about another which may or may not be true.

Now you do realize you are answering questions directed mainly at him, about his words ... right ? I'm trying to be detailed in my responses to you, but it appears you keep making assumptions about me that are sending this side conversation off into circles .... I don't know about you, but I'm not that interested in this if it's going to go around and around like this ....
 
Upvote 0

Cactus Jack

Well-Known Member
Jul 12, 2011
1,459
113
somewhere
✟32,279.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I have several views on this. First, I was raised with the idea that you had to earn a tat. Depending on the tat, of course. You don't go get a US Army or USMC tat, without having served. Anything else, up to the individual.
And then the second view comes in. Why? Would you feel comfortable spray painting a Mettalica symbol on the tapestry behind where the preacher stands? Would you be satisfied painting naked women on the walls of your church?
And then, third view- are you comfortable with yourself now, or do you need a tat to make yourself feel better? Is this a need to show your individuality? Remember how the Third Reich showed the Jews their individuality. Tattooing serial numbers on the Jews.

This is, of course, my opinion. I don't expect you to agree or to do what I would do. But you did ask for opinions, right?
 
Upvote 0

TheDag

I don't like titles
Jan 8, 2005
9,459
267
✟43,794.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And then the second view comes in. Why? Would you feel comfortable spray painting a Mettalica symbol on the tapestry behind where the preacher stands? Would you be satisfied painting naked women on the walls of your church?
This is an example of argument by ridicule. make a situation seem absurd to proove a point. The question may get a different response to what if you put a cross on the tapestry behind the preacher? Considering several denominations already do this kind of thing it gives a very different perspective. of course if metallica was the only option for a tattoo then that would make your question legitimate.
 
Upvote 0

Fenny the Fox

Well-Known Member
Apr 21, 2009
4,147
315
Rock Hill, SC
Visit site
✟46,119.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
The only prohibition against tattoos (or other forms of scarification) that I have seen in the Bible [please correct me if I am missing something] is Lev 19:28:

Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.
Note the important three words "for the dead" within the text, which is reference to the pagan ritual of the area that would involve scarification in mourning and remembrance. The Israelites were adviced, through most of the Leviticus laws, to avoid that which was "pagan" -worship, culture, etc.- lest they simply become pagans themselves and lose God in the process.

I fail to see how a prohibition against the pagan scarification in mourning is applicable to tattoos in modern day - unless one does so in praise of the dead or pagan gods. But that is my opinion and reading thereof.
 
Upvote 0

Barricade24

Active Member
Feb 3, 2012
385
9
In a Chair
✟31,127.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I personally have no interest in getting a tatoo. It's just not something I want. I was told by a fellow Christian that he had several tatoos. Since the Bible instructs us to be modest, he said looking back he probably wouldn't have gotten the tatoos that he did. But he dosen't lose any sleep over it.

So while I personally wouldn't get a tatoo or piercing myself, you can be glad in knowing that God will love you no matter what you do.
 
Upvote 0