Your Body is A Temple...

missjasmine said:

Many people argue that the bible says that because our bodies are a temple, we should not litter them. I do believe that the holds true in the sense of your physical health (think along the lines of not doing drugs)...

Here's my question though, what do you think this verse from the bible meant? Does it mean we are to be pure only on the inside, on the outside, or both?

For me personally I love my tattoos (currently have 3 and will have more sometime within the next year!) and piercings (ears, nose, lip) They're part of me, and part of my personality. My Dad, who is Baptist, constantly reminds me the Lord says my body is a temple and I should stop littering it. My rebuttal is generally "well the temples were decorated, and I choose to decorate my temple"

So what's your take on this? Are tattoos and piercings a no-no? Or just drugs? Is this verse meant to be taken for the outer appearance of your body or the inner, or both?

Click to expand...

I'm assuming your referring to 1 COR 3:16-17. If you read verses 13, 14, and 15 to put it in it's proper context, it refers to your actions. I believe it has to do with our actions towards others. That's just my $0.02.

missjasmine said:

My rebuttal is generally "well the temples were decorated, and I choose to decorate my temple"

Click to expand...

LOL!

Good one~

I personally have no tattoos or piercings, but I love the logic!

There are a couple of passages to which you could be referring. One passage is 1 Cor. 3:16-17. I believe that that passage, however, is not referring to us as individuals but to the Church as a body of believers. As such, I don't think that it really applies to this discussion.

The other passage, which is perhaps more fitting, is 1 Cor. 6:19-20. I believe that this passage is reminding us that we are not our own to do as we please. More specifically, the bodies that God has given us, do not belong to us, but to Him. Therefore, we are called to treat our bodies, not as something that we own, and with which we can make decisions based on our own desires. Rather, I believe that this passage is telling us that our bodies belong to God, and He is allowing us to use them for His purposes. If we owned our bodies, then we would have no accountability for what we do with them. But, since God owns them, we remain accountable to him.

In the passage, the specific application is in the realm of sexual immorality. Likely, Paul is responding to the argument that says, "I will sleep with prostitutes if I want to, because it's body." Instead, he is saying that, as believers, we don't have that liberty. The decisions that we make with how we use our bodies should reflect how we believe God would want us to use our bodies. So, we should abstain from sexually immoral behavior (however, we believe that to be defined); we should seek to eat healthy; and so forth. But, we should also seek to adorn our bodies in a way that is consistent with God's purpose for us. I am not a fan of tattoos, because I really don't like being committed to a bodily decoration for the rest of my life. But, I can't say that there is anything wrong with other people choosing to get a tattoo that reflects positively on the One who owns the body. But, I do believe that, because it is relatively permanent, tattooing requires considerably more thought than other adornments (clothes, makeup, etc.).

Well there is somewhere in the old Testament where it says one shouldn't have on'e body pierced (can't remember the exact ref off-hand), anyhow, there are Christians who quote this and say one shouldn't have tattoos or even ear-piercings. There is some reason for it apparently, but i have to say I ahven't really looked into it.

tansy said:

Well there is somewhere in the old Testament where it says one shouldn't have on'e body pierced (can't remember the exact ref off-hand), anyhow, there are Christians who quote this and say one shouldn't have tattoos or even ear-piercings. There is some reason for it apparently, but i have to say I ahven't really looked into it.

Click to expand...

Cultures in that region from Egypt (south/west) through Phoenecia and Greece (north/east) used body markings to indicate social standing or the lack thereof. Our cultures once did as well, but no longer do, not with people. Cattle are not so fortunate.

It is inconsistent to export social rules from one culture to another and expect them to carry the same force. We have developed visible social markers of our own, and they're equally arbitrary. But they're also much more portable now and allow for a far greater degree of free movement between classes than was possible for the ancient cultures.

It wasn't easy for a Semitic servant to hide his bored ear, or for a Babylonian captive to hide his nose-ring. It wasn't meant to be easy. When a servant got his ear pierced in his master's doorpost, that was bonding for life. And when the Babylonians kidnapped you as a conquest prize, they weren't going to send you back on vacation.

By contrast, it's comparatively easy for a chest-tattooed breakbeat DJ to cover his body art up with a pressed dress shirt on Monday morning and have none of his colleagues any wiser. And, depending on his profession, a small and subjectively tasteful earring may not turn any heads either. The contexts are completely different. And so are the stakes.

The principles, however, are worth discussing.

Dies3l said:

More specifically, the bodies that God has given us, do not belong to us, but to Him. Therefore, we are called to treat our bodies, not as something that we own, and with which we can make decisions based on our own desires. Rather, I believe that this passage is telling us that our bodies belong to God, and He is allowing us to use them for His purposes. If we owned our bodies, then we would have no accountability for what we do with them. But, since God owns them, we remain accountable to him.

Click to expand...

I think this is reading into Corinthians far more than what is actually there.

1 Corinthians 3 16-17

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honour God with your body.

First of all, the Temple. The Temple was a building created by man, for the express purpose of allowing people to come together to worship God, and to bring sacrifices to him. The Israelites believed that God inhabited the Temple. However, they also decided, in their wisdom, that only the High Priest could enter the bit where God dwelt, and come into his presence.

The Temple did not ever 'belong' to God. It belonged to man, and was inhabited by God, for as long as he chose to live there. In Christian belief God left the Temple at the moment Christ died, when the veil was torn in two, and as a result of him leaving, Jerusalem fell to the Romans some years later.

So then we come to our own bodies. Certainly God gave them to us to live in, just as we gave him the Temple to live in. But he does not own our bodies. We do. To say 'you are not your own' is not the same as saying 'your body is not your own.' We are not just body, but body, mind, spirit and soul.

If I give you a present it does not remain mine; it becomes yours. Only in a very dysfunctional relationship does part of the ownership remain with me, enabling me to remind you constantly of your obligation to me. God gives us our bodies as he gives us our lives; freely, and without condition. We are free to do as we want to with the bodies we have, and free to chose either to respect them or abuse them, or more probably behave somewhere between the two.

Any parent who convinces his or her child that their own body is not their own sovereign territory, over which they always have an age appropriate final word, as to what happens, when and how, is a dysfunctional parent. Even the youngest child must be able to say 'stop', and have parents who respect that, and stop whatever it is they are doing, whether tickling, cuddling, or whatever. Even a cuddle prolonged past the child saying, 'stop' is harmful, because it crosses the child's boundaries, and sets that child up for far worse boundary abuses in the future.

What is true of us is true of God. And God is not a dysfunctional parent.

Ergo, our bodies are our own. Which means, if you want a tattoo, have one. And it also means that if we choose to honour God with our bodies, that is our own free choice, not something we are constrained to do because our bodies are not our own.

tansy said:

Well there is somewhere in the old Testament where it says one shouldn't have on'e body pierced (can't remember the exact ref off-hand), anyhow, there are Christians who quote this and say one shouldn't have tattoos or even ear-piercings. There is some reason for it apparently, but i have to say I ahven't really looked into it.

Click to expand...

I have said it before, and no doubt will say it again. There is a lot of rubbish in the Bible.

If anyone followed what it said to the letter, on everything, they would end up either in prison or psychiatric care. If you want a tattoo, have one. If you want a nose ring, have one.

If you are an Orthodox Jew, it is not such a good idea, because they are forbidden to have tattoos, and must be buried naked (ie the tattoo must be removed as well as their clothes), but otherwise, go ahead.

Catherineanne said:

I think this is reading into Corinthians far more than what is actually there.

1 Corinthians 3 16-17

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honour God with your body.

First of all, the Temple. The Temple was a building created by man, for the express purpose of allowing people to come together to worship God, and to bring sacrifices to him. The Israelites believed that God inhabited the Temple. However, they also decided, in their wisdom, that only the High Priest could enter the bit where God dwelt, and come into his presence.

The Temple did not ever 'belong' to God. It belonged to man, and was inhabited by God, for as long as he chose to live there. In Christian belief God left the Temple at the moment Christ died, when the veil was torn in two, and as a result of him leaving, Jerusalem fell to the Romans some years later.

So then we come to our own bodies. Certainly God gave them to us to live in, just as we gave him the Temple to live in. But he does not own our bodies. We do. To say 'you are not your own' is not the same as saying 'your body is not your own.' We are not just body, but body, mind, spirit and soul.

If I give you a present it does not remain mine; it becomes yours. Only in a very dysfunctional relationship does part of the ownership remain with me, enabling me to remind you constantly of your obligation to me. God gives us our bodies as he gives us our lives; freely, and without condition. We are free to do as we want to with the bodies we have, and free to chose either to respect them or abuse them, or more probably behave somewhere between the two.

Any parent who convinces his or her child that their own body is not their own sovereign territory, over which they always have an age appropriate final word, as to what happens, when and how, is a dysfunctional parent. Even the youngest child must be able to say 'stop', and have parents who respect that, and stop whatever it is they are doing, whether tickling, cuddling, or whatever. Even a cuddle prolonged past the child saying, 'stop' is harmful, because it crosses the child's boundaries, and sets that child up for far worse boundary abuses in the future.

What is true of us is true of God. And God is not a dysfunctional parent.

Ergo, our bodies are our own. Which means, if you want a tattoo, have one. And it also means that if we choose to honour God with our bodies, that is our own free choice, not something we are constrained to do because our bodies are not our own.

Click to expand...

I think you were quoting I Cor. 6:19. The passage you cite is not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

But, I would ask you, what biblical basis do you have to assert that God ever gave us our bodies as a gift, or as anything more than a bailment with which we are entrusted until our last breath? If it were truly a gift, then there what moral basis would God have to take our lives and remove us from our earthly vessels when the our time of death comes? And, doesn't the passage say that you were bought with a price? Wouldn't that suggest that, to whatever extent, we did "own" our bodies, we do so no longer? After all, a purchase changes ownership from the seller to the buyer. I would read this passage to say that when we have accepted God's soverignty over our lives, we have been purchased, and the seller owns all of us, including our earthly vessels.

Certainly, we have liberty to do whatever we want. If I choose to jump off a highway overpass and smash my body into smithereens, God is not going to stop me. But, that doesn't change the fact that, in doing so, I am treating not only myself, but my Creator and Savior with contempt and I am rejecting God's soverignty over my life and my body. I cannot simultaneously claim to have faith in God while rejecting God's sovereignty over me. To do the latter is to disprove the former. To claim that I have placed my faith and trust in God, while denying his right to dictate how I treat my body, is to make myself a liar.

Dies3l said:

But, I would ask you, what biblical basis do you have to assert that God ever gave us our bodies as a gift, or as anything more than a bailment with which we are entrusted until our last breath? If it were truly a gift, then there what moral basis would God have to take our lives and remove us from our earthly vessels when the our time of death comes? And, doesn't the passage say that you were bought with a price? Wouldn't that suggest that, to whatever extent, we did "own" our bodies, we do so no longer? After all, a purchase changes ownership from the seller to the buyer. I would read this passage to say that when we have accepted God's soverignty over our lives, we have been purchased, and the seller owns all of us, including our earthly vessels.

Click to expand...

What Biblical basis do you have for all this nonsense?

Certainly, we have liberty to do whatever we want. If I choose to jump off a highway overpass and smash my body into smithereens, God is not going to stop me. But, that doesn't change the fact that, in doing so, I am treating not only myself, but my Creator and Savior with contempt and I am rejecting God's soverignty over my life and my body. I cannot simultaneously claim to have faith in God while rejecting God's sovereignty over me. To do the latter is to disprove the former. To claim that I have placed my faith and trust in God, while denying his right to dictate how I treat my body, is to make myself a liar.

Click to expand...

You are entitled to your opinion.

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, suicide is an illness, not an act of blasphemy. In other words, God regards it with mercy and compassion, not anger.

And God does not dictate anything to anyone. Or have you not noticed?

Catherineanne said:

What Biblical basis do you have for all this nonsense?

Click to expand...

The passage that we are discussing, I think, is rather clear, and I think I have explained how I come to the conclusions that I do.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Click to expand...

As you are to yours.

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth,

Click to expand...

I am not quite sure what I have said to justify the attitude. Is it possible for us to disagree without the snide commentary?

suicide is an illness, not an act of blasphemy.

Click to expand...

Suicide is not an illness. It can, however, be a symptom of depression, which can be an illness. Yet, how we respond to our illnesses is a choice. Do we choose therapy, medication, prayer and whatever else might help us to overcome our health issues, or do you we choose destruction? I am fully aware of what it is to live with treated and with untreated depression. Untreated depression is absolute Hell. I am also fully aware that I am blessed to be a person for whom counseling and medical treatments have worked quite well, and that not all who suffer from depression are so lucky. As with physical illnesses, some people will not recover and will succumb to the illness. Nonetheless, to say that a person who suffers from mental illness has no choice whatsoever, is to encourage that person to live in slavery to their disease, rather than to fight like hell to recover.

In other words, God regards it with mercy and compassion, not anger.

Click to expand...

Of course he does! He responds to all sinners with mercy and compassion; it is up to us whether we choose to accept his grace. He offers it; he does not force it.

And God does not dictate anything to anyone. Or have you not noticed?

Click to expand...

I think I said as much in my prior post. Even though he does not force us to do anything against our will, he does provide us with guidelines as to how we can live our lives in a way that is honoring to Him. Inevitably some people will choose to live in a way that is contemptuous toward themselves, others, and to their Creator. The fact that God allows each of us to make such choices does not mean that God approves of them. We certainly have freedom to make our own choices, but our choices do reflect how we feel about ourselves and about our Creator, including how we choose to treat the bodies that He has entrusted to us.


May I ask if everything is ok with you? It is hard to judge over the internet, but based on my interactions with you in the past, you don't quite sound the same as usual.

Dies3l said:

May I ask if everything is ok with you? It is hard to judge over the internet, but based on my interactions with you in the past, you don't quite sound the same as usual.

Click to expand...

I suspect this is a projection.

Strangely enough, it always gets up my nose when I give my considered opinion on something and then get asked, 'what biblical basis do you have to assert', as if I am in the habit of basing my opinions on Satanism for Beginners.

I found your language confrontational, intemperate and unnecessarily violent. Therefore the best response to that was not to engage further, because defending my position would lead to escalation; my opinions do not need to be defended. They are what they are, 'biblical' or not.

So you can now either carry on fighting, or realise that there is no enemy, and no engagement. Your choice.

Catherineanne said:

I suspect this is a projection.

Click to expand...

I only said something, because your response concerned me. I didn't realize that my tone had come across as confrontational. Thank you for explaining in more detail.

Strangely enough, it always gets up my nose when I give my considered opinion on something and then get asked, 'what biblical basis do you have to assert', as if I am in the habit of basing my opinions on Satanism for Beginners.

I found your language confrontational, intemperate and unnecessarily violent. Therefore the best response to that was not to engage further, because defending my position would lead to escalation; my opinions do not need to be defended. They are what they are, 'biblical' or not.

So you can now either carry on fighting, or realise that there is no enemy, and no engagement. Your choice.

Click to expand...

I apologize if my tone came across as confrontational in any way. If so, it was unintentional. I assure that I do not see you as an enemy, and I see this discussion as nothing more than a conversation between two well-intentioned Christians who disagree about something. I hope that I might be more civil in continuing this discourse.

That being said, I do think it is appropriate to ask others to explain the reasoning behind their beliefs. When we are discussing ur understanding of a passage of Scripture, I think the Bible is a good place to look for guidance. The intent of what I said, which I suppose came across as unnecessarily harsh, was to ask you to elaborate on the basis for your understanding of the passage. I believe that to do nothing more than to assert our opinions, without explaining and discussing our reasoning and thinking really serves no meaningful purpose.

Grace and peace to you, in Christ.

I see nothing wrong with tattoos and piercings and such. I do not believe that such things violate the concept of our body being a temple of the Holy Spirit.

Dies3l said:

That being said, I do think it is appropriate to ask others to explain the reasoning behind their beliefs.

Click to expand...

Darling you can ask anything you like, any time you like.

And I can do this.



And I will then give you an answer; the Bible is not God. The Bible is not the foundation of my faith; Christ is.

God himself; Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is the 'reasoning' behind my beliefs. Or, as the Blessed Julian says:

Thou wouldst know the Lord's meaning in this thing? Know it well; Love was his meaning.

Which happens to be fully in accord with the words of the blessed Paul, who says even if we quote Scripture itself and forget God's love, we are making just so much meaningless noise. Love is always the context of every single verse of Scripture; God's love for us, and our love for our brothers and sisters. Take away this love, and you take away the presence of God himself, and are left with just so much noise, very often comprising a whole heap of human failing, mistake, bigotry and prejudice.

In other words, stop looking for the 'biblical explanation', which is not worth the paper it is written on, and instead find the love. Because when you find that love, Christ is present.

I believe that to do nothing more than to assert our opinions, without explaining and discussing our reasoning and thinking really serves no meaningful purpose.

Click to expand...

Which is what you think I did? Wot fun!

PaladinGirl said:

I see nothing wrong with tattoos and piercings and such. I do not believe that such things violate the concept of our body being a temple of the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Heroin, excessive alcohol, perhaps even too much pie, yes. Tattoos, not really. But all things in moderation, except love.

Catherineanne said:

Darling you can ask anything you like, any time you like.

And I can do this.



And I will then give you an answer; the Bible is not God. The Bible is not the foundation of my faith; Christ is.

God himself; Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is the 'reasoning' behind my beliefs. Or, as the Blessed Julian says:

Thou wouldst know the Lord's meaning in this thing? Know it well; Love was his meaning.

Which happens to be fully in accord with the words of the blessed Paul, who says even if we quote Scripture itself and forget God's love, we are making just so much meaningless noise. Love is always the context of every single verse of Scripture; God's love for us, and our love for our brothers and sisters. Take away this love, and you take away the presence of God himself, and are left with just so much noise, very often comprising a whole heap of human failing, mistake, bigotry and prejudice.

In other words, stop looking for the 'biblical explanation', which is not worth the paper it is written on, and instead find the love. Because when you find that love, Christ is present.

Click to expand...

I agree that quoting Scripture in a legalistic fashion that loses sight of the sum of the law (Love God, love your neighbor) is just as just as useless, if not moreseo, than citing opinions without reasoning. But, I disagree with the idea that "the biblical explanation is not worth the paper its written on." When used properly the biblical explanation can be used to help us to understand what love looks like in a given situation. For example, in our discussion of the passage in question, I don't believe that it is loving to tell a person that he or she has complete freedom to damage his or he body) whether by self-injury, suicide, drugs, excessive alcohol, excessive food, etc.) without moral consequence.

Certainly, love requires that we exercise discernment. I am not going to cram Scripture down the throat of a hurting self-injurer, because I know that most people who intentionally self-injure already realize that their behavior is unhealthy and hurts both them and God. I aslo realize that self-injury is a symptom of mental illness, and that if it were as simple as telling the person to stop hurting themselves, they would have figured that out by now. By the same token, it would be no more loving of me to tell the person that, if they want to cut themselves, that is fine, because it's their body to do with as they please. Love requires that I help them, as much as they are willing to be helped, to receieve the help that they need to overcome the destructive behavior. And, one way that I come to this understanding of what love is in the situation, is by reading Scripture.

Neither extreme is loving. If we moralize, without grace, to make people do as we think they ought, then that is not love. When we avoid telling people what we believe to be true, whenever it will be uncomfortable for the other person to hear, then that is not love. Love requires that we speak the truth, at least to the extent of our own understanding, with grace and mercy.

Applying to this to the O.P., I personally don't see anything wrong with tattoos piercings, as long as they are God and self-honoring. My AA sponsor has a Jack Daniels tattoo on his belly. He has now been sober for 11 years. Obviously, if he could go back and make the decision over again, he would not get the tattoo; he is stuck with a remnant of a lifestyle that he used to live. But, he has learned to use his tattoo as an aid to his sobriety, as a reminder of the type of stupidity that ensues when an alcoholic drinks. I think this illustrates why relatively permanent adornments, such as tattooing and gaugeing, should demand a special degree of prayer and consideration by Christians. But, I see nothing in Scripture and logic that would suggest that there is anything immoral about such "decorations."

Obviously, such things, like anything can be taken to an unhealthy extreme. If all of your spending money is going to the tattoo parlor, then this is a problem. If this, or any other obsession, inhibits generosity, then that is a problem. But, any behavior, whether normall healthy or not, can become an unhealthy and idolatrous obsession.

Which is what you think I did? Wot fun!

Click to expand...

I disagree, but it's really not worth arguing about.

missjasmine said:

Many people argue that the bible says that because our bodies are a temple, we should not litter them. I do believe that the holds true in the sense of your physical health (think along the lines of not doing drugs)...

Here's my question though, what do you think this verse from the bible meant? Does it mean we are to be pure only on the inside, on the outside, or both?

For me personally I love my tattoos (currently have 3 and will have more sometime within the next year!) and piercings (ears, nose, lip) They're part of me, and part of my personality. My Dad, who is Baptist, constantly reminds me the Lord says my body is a temple and I should stop littering it. My rebuttal is generally "well the temples were decorated, and I choose to decorate my temple"

So what's your take on this? Are tattoos and piercings a no-no? Or just drugs? Is this verse meant to be taken for the outer appearance of your body or the inner, or both?

Click to expand...

[i hate doing the whole when i believed type of advice, but i will here]

when i was a christian, my theory was this:
There are 613 laws in the OT. Tell me why I should not get a tattoo, according to scripture when I am supposedly can't eat Long John Silvers, to stone my future children for their disobediance, not allowed to wear clothes with mixed fabrics, not allowed to trim up my beard for mere examples and why aren't these other ones practicied by Christians, if Christ didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill it?

The point isn't to nullify that verse in Leviticus that is more talking about not tattooing for the dead. My point is, you can't pick which laws to follow and which laws you don't. If Christ fulfilled the laws as it is said in Christianity, are they telling me that now children, homosexuals, adulterers, people working on the sabbath are allowed to live, or that I am free wear whatever type of clothes I want, or I can eat at any restaurant now regardless of it selling shellfish, but I can't get a tattoo? I don't understand people that make it so important to follow "some" of the laws, but yet not follow all of them or at best, figure out which one were the priestly laws and which ones weren't (but I thought all who are believers are priests and kings or is it only historical context and if it is, then that shows another point).

the most important part to me has nothing to do with the religious aspect of it. I came to this conclusion way before I lost my faith. Are you willing to accept the consequences, good, bad or both? There is a stigma, a stereotype, a taboo that comes with it no matter what. Assumingly, it is probably a lot better now than what it was before years ago. The taboos and all that still exist.

Best luck of it, and enjoy the ink if you continue it I have 0 gauge plugs in my ear loabs, used to be at 1/2 in. but I left them out for so long, I had to back track. I have 4 tattoos, all on my lower right arm. If I have my way, my goal will be to sleeve my right arm, and have it cover my shoulder and going into my right peck area, then maybe some pieces on my ankles, and maybe my upper left arm sleeved.

Gotta love ink