Pages

Monday, May 21, 2007

Getting Inked

For what it's worth, here's my part of a dialog over at Maverick Philosopher's blog regarding the moral and social issues surrounding tattoos.

The arguments were basically that: (a) it marks a degenerating of our society since it was always slaves and barbarians who sported tats, (b) they are unsafe and getting one unwisely puts you at risk for contracting viruses like HIV, and perhaps most importantly (c) the Bible condemns them - specifically in the Old (Lev.19:28), and implicitly in the New (I Corinthians 6:19).

The two reasons for this post are: (i) Many apostates have a weird view of what a "Christian" should be. Heck, many of us brew beer, smoke stogies, and watch the UFC! These apostates were raised in a Appalachian Mountain Fundamentalist (AMF!) sort of way. Then, when they had the urge to get inked, knock back a few cold ones, or take some pulls of a meerschaum, they left the faith. (Next thing you know, they're visiting our comboxes and writing "YAWN" after every post!) Sure, you can call us Victorian because we do not think that it is okay to commit adultery against your wife, or molest your neighbors kids, or forsake the gathering as some are in the habit of doing, but other than that, the Christian life isn't the life of a Mormon Missionary. No, no, no; we not only get to chug Mountain Dew, we sip fine whiskey too!

(ii) would be for the Christian -- perhaps head pastors, youth pastors, and parents -- who spend their time condemning tattoos rather than watching out for the real spiritual (and physical) dangers kids can get into. Certainly certain types of body modification and tattoo work are immoral -- say pornographic images or satanic themes -- but we wouldn't want to commit the fallacy of a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid on this point. However, most Christian kids don't want to get an upside-down cross on their back, they want to get the 5 solas, the symbol of the trinity, a cross, or something like that. Perhaps, though, they might want a religiously neutral tattoo in the sense of their favorite animal, say, a lion fighting another lion on their back, a picture of a loved on (perhaps a young married person in college), etc. The are plenty of morally dangerous situation younger people might get into that it would better if the above mentioned group didn’t spend it judging (for the most part) moral non-issues. All Christians, especially the young, have a hard enough time obeying the laws God has set forth in Scripture, let alone following man-made ones. Hence this post is also for your benefit.

************

************

5.11.2007 3:17pm

I find this odd. First, the comments about contracting HIV seem a bit uniformed. This isn't the 70's and 80's. If one goes to a reputable artist the risk of getting HIV is the same as getting it from surgery.

Second, one need not get it to be an "individual" but to "identify" with an idea, group, philosophy, etc.

Third, since the Bible doesn't forbid it, and assuming we have liberty of conscience, then what prohibits it? Subjective opinion? Much like the parents of the kids in the 60's who told them not to listen to the Beatles, or the kids in the 50's who were told not to watch Elvis shake his hips?

Fourth, what it may have represented is not what it represents now. Doctors, lawyers, and even house wives are "getting inked." I mean, why should I ever choose to eat rice and beans (if I had the money to eat steak) since it represents what poor people ate? The lower class.

Anyway, I have about 12... :-)

__________________________

5.12.2007 8:23am

Hi Ian,

I am familiar with that verse, and I must now come clean with what I forgot to add in my original post. I didn't get any of my tattoos "for the dead." Furthermore, I don't believe that Lev. 19:28 is part of what is commonly referred to as part of the moral law. It has ceremonial intentions, i.e., the setting apart of Israel from the nations around them.

Hi Mike,

Well, I don't know the specifics, but certainly we can take things too far. Did your father get involved with the drug-counter culture? Were the Beatles a gateway into that? And, yes, sometimes conservative intuitions are right. I am myself a conservative. But, that doesn't mean that they always are. I've still seen no moral reason to not get one, and the reasons above are mostly false and outdated. They don't affect my speech, driving, thinking, sensor-motor control, personality, behavior, &c. So, that you notice something in your father which would cause you to think he shouldn't have listened to Elvis, that would be unnoticeable with me.

Hi Thomas,

I don't have a "casual attitude" toward HIV. And, I may be more youthful that some, but not others. I'm older than the above commenter, Michael Sullivan. Your claim that my comments about a reputable establishment RE are "amusing," and the following question, only reinforce my assumption that you haven't really looked into this specific issue before.

For starters, a RE will have FDA approved ink. Every customer, according to industry standards, has a brand new package of needles opened right in front of their eyes. The actual tattoo gun and other non-disposable tools are is autoclaved. This is the same procedure that your local hospital uses on its non-disposable tools. Gloves are always worn. During one of my visits my artist took off his glove to answer a phone, and then put a brand new one on after he hung up the phone. Fresh ink is used for every session. The ink used on a previous client is tossed into a biohazard trash can, like in your local doctors office. Or, take Oregon. Performing tattoos there, without a license, is a felony. To get a license, in most states, requires being certified as to your knowledge of health and safety precautions, as well as the current state regulations. Lastly, if you get a tattoo from a RE, and have the papers to prove it, you are even allowed to give blood. In the old days you had to wait 12 months.

So, as I said, it's about as dangerous as getting HIV from a routine stitch-up at your doctors office.

And, lastly, there has not been one documented case of someone contracting HIV from getting tattooed. This according to the CDC who began studying this issue in 1985. But, there have been 7 known cases where someone has contracted HIV from their dentist! This is found in the CDC's "Estimated incidence of AIDS and deaths of persons with AIDS, adjusted for delays in reporting, by quarter-year of diagnosis/death, United States, January 1985 through June 1997." They also claim this in this report published in 2006. CDC categorizes tattooists as "personal service workers" along with hairdressers, barbers, manicurists, acupuncturists, and massage therapists.

best,

Paul


____________________


5.12.2007 8:45am

Hi Bill,

I checked out the article. No doubt the history is correct. But then, modern reasons for getting tattoos have changed. As I said, doctors, lawyers, politicians, high powered sports agents, college professors, singers, professional athletes, the military, CEOs, &c, &c, &c. All walks of life have them. And, considering the cost - it aint cheap - the "lower class" would be excluded from getting any descent tattoo at a reputable establishment.

Be that as it may, the article closed out this way:

"It's a sign of the degeneracy of modern life that tattoos have become so widespread. What used to be a mark of degradation (in the case of slaves and criminals) or uncivilized behavior (in the case of barbarians) is now commonplace and accepted in most social circles. In 1 Corinthians 6.19, we read "What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?" To tattoo the body is to deface this temple."

The argument is odd:

1. If something was uncivilized then, it should be now.

2. Tattoos were.

3. They are now.

That seems odd. And, to use the homosexual Greeks as a standard of "conservativism" seems a bit odd. Women were for making babies, boys for fun, went a saying. And some scholars don't agree that this was the common practice, but was reserved for the aristocracy (Bruce Thornton is one such scholar). So, should we argue that the resurgence of popularity with homosexuality means that we are getting more civilized? Or, the attempts at stopping gay marriages is a mark of "degeneracy?"

Lastly, the context of 1 Cor. 6 is about joining your body with a prostitute. These out of context arguments from 1 Cor. 6 are always funny. After all, why eat McDonalds, your body is a temple. Why play sports where you could get injured, your body is a temple. Should you work out, make your temple bigger? And, why can't you adorn your temple? If you can't, should women ditch the makeup?

best,

Paul


________________________


5.13.2007 8:20pm


Hi Bill,

I suppose I don't get offended over this issue because I've been discussing it with those who make much the same claims as the above for the past 13 or 14 years. So, it rolls off my back now.

I certainly agree that some types of body modification are defacing, and can definitely hinder one's acceptance in the mostly non-tattooed world. None of mine are unable to be hidden, if I need them to be. So, many people don’t even know that I have any. No "tear drop" under my eye! But, perhaps in the next 30 years CEOs will be sporting full sleeves (that's code for arms tattooed from shoulder to wrist)!

I'm glad you're not a "hidebound" conservative, since there's now a tattooed conservative group! But since some have conservative meaning tattoos, I guess they are hidebound. :-)

And, lastly, you could get that tattooed on your arm from an RE for around $100; a bit more than a haircut, but you don't need to keep going back every 6 months. :-)

best,

Paul

************

************

78 comments:

  1. It's one thing to get tattoos before conversion and another to get them after. You're not a canvas, God has already made you in His image. Tattoos have the smell of death on them, don't they? They reflect the world's heart, why would a new creation in Christ want to get them? The principle of not marking up your body like the world is in Scripture, why dance around it? I'm not saying this is your position Paul, but those who want to defend getting tattoos AS Christians have to dance around the Scriptural principles to justify it...

    ReplyDelete
  2. TATTOOS = IDOLATRY

    Its in the book, baby!

    QED.

    Case Closed.

    :::YAWN!!!:::

    SNIZZ!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. The folks who get offended by it, Jeromus, are folks who either think that not getting tattooed makes one more holy and/or those who are dancing around Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8, which follows 1 Cor 6. The argument against tattoos proceeds along the exact same lines as the argument for tea-totalling. Sorry, but I am not persuaded.

    One must assume that tattooing "makes one like the world" in order to make your argument. But if that's the case, wearing the latest fashion, whether long skirts or short, dress shirts or casual, falls along the same lines. So, the issue isn't "looking like the world," but what constitutes "worldliness."


    The arguments were basically that: (a) it marks a degenerating of our society since it was always slaves and barbarians who sported tats,


    And it is precisely those who cremated their dead. Do those who oppose tattooing on this basis also argue this when discussing cremation v. burial? The Bible does not speak on that issue, though the tradition was to entomb or bury the remains of the dead in Israel. Does it then follow we should bury and not cremate?

    (i) Many apostates have a weird view of what a "Christian" should be. Heck, many of us brew beer, smoke stogies, and watch the UFC! These apostates were raised in a Appalachian Mountain Fundamentalist (AMF!) sort of way. Then, when they had the urge to get inked, knock back a few cold ones, or take some pulls of a meerschaum, they left the faith. (Next thing you know, they're visiting our comboxes and writing "YAWN" after every post!) Sure, you can call us Victorian because we do not think that it is okay to commit adultery against your wife, or molest your neighbors kids, or forsake the gathering as some are in the habit of doing, but other than that, the Christian life isn't the life of a Mormon Missionary. No, no, no; we not only get to chug Mountain Dew, we sip fine whiskey too!

    So, on the one hand we have those Christians opposing tattooing because it gives these folks a view of Christians that they are "worldly." On the other, hand, I would say that that very argument plays into the hands of those apostates that the Christians are just a bunch of Bible totin' hicks that spend more time on externals than internals, that can't argue positively for the faith, and simply base their faith on rank fideism. So, this argument, if true, would cut both ways.

    Paul is right. The Bible condemns tattooing for the dead . So, what makes tattooing sinful in the Law is idolatry. So, he's right, its part of the ceremonial law, but we need to remember that it is indexed to the moral law through the caveat "for the dead." Tattooing itself isn't idolatrous. Tattooing for the dead is idolatrous, and those around Israel were concrete exemplars of it. Is getting a tattoo today idolatry or not? If so, where is the NT argument to support it? Is it an inversion of the creation order? If it is, then is it illicit to trim the hedges of your house? Isn't that inverting the creation order too? Do those who oppose tattooing also oppose the cutting of the hair of the head along the sides on males? Do they wear clothes woven of multiple fibers? No and No. Why? Because there are not pagans around us doing these things. On the other hand, if the Secret Police were to rise up and command us to grow our hair out to worship the Lord President of the United States, we would have license to invoke that text. Why? Because then it would, be idolatrous, of course.

    The Law for Israel in these matters states a concrete instantiation of a larger principle. These are not intended to be concrete instances true for every single generation for time immemorial, because none of the covenant peoples live in the same society in the NT age in particular nor in the same place in history with the same practices around them or the same reasons for those practices if they are still in place. In fact, it is precisely the view of of the Law that overlooks that fact that many of our apostates in the combox regularly use, so it is the one arguing against tattooing here that is playing into the apostates' agenda.

    Regarding HIV, there is a National AIDS Hotline. One would hope that the original author would have actually called them. I used to work there; they're great folks. What Paul says is very correct. Tattooing is a regulated industry, and one is tattooed with fresh needles every time, and the rest of the instruments are autoclaved. The fact that his interlocuter even used that argument speaks to his handling of Scripture. If he can't get that right...and I was teaching that information FIFTEEN YEARS AGO...why should I take what he says from Scripture to be of any better quality? If folks are getting HIV from tattooing, then, pray tell, where all all the documented cases in South Florida, where there are lots and lots of tattooed persons with HIV? Where are all the cases of HIV infection attributed to being tattooed after these persons went into the establishment?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jeromus said:
    ---
    You're not a canvas, God has already made you in His image.
    ---

    This is precisely why I walk around naked all day long. I am not a clothing rack! I am a human being in the image of God and you ought to be blessed by viewing that in it's full, magnficant glory!!!

    9}{34R! PH33R!!!!!11!!!11!!1!!!

    Jeromus said:
    ---
    Tattoos have the smell of death on them, don't they?
    ---

    Only the scratch-n-sniff kind. But those are usually temporary anyway.

    Jeromus said:
    ---
    They reflect the world's heart, why would a new creation in Christ want to get them?
    ---

    Atheists and worldly people write comments in blog posts too. More specifically, these wordly folks often disagree with Paul. Jeromus is reflecting their heart in responding here against Paul. Ergo...

    Jeromus said:
    ---
    The principle of not marking up your body like the world is in Scripture, why dance around it?
    ---

    Why dance around giving us chapter and verse?

    ReplyDelete
  5. By the way, I'm also curious if Jeromus is against nose rings. Especially given Genesis 24:47.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Peter,

    *Ahem* Please get dressed before commenting. Thanks.

    I'm not trying to cause a stink about tattoos, it's my opinion. I can't be dogmatic, although I probably sounded like it in my last comments. I think the Scriptural principles are there. I consider it along the lines of avoiding every appearance of evil. Tattoos didn't originate with Christians. I'm sure you can argue that French toast didn't originate with Christians either, but I still eat it. Whatever. But just like your words reflect what is in your heart, getting a tattoo says something about what's in your heart also. If you want to argue that Rock music is OK, drinking beer in a bar (note: not against beer, just against bars), etc., that's your prerogative, but I still say "avoid every appearance of evil". Tattoo'd bar drinkers don't exactly gush forth with godliness in my view. And believe me, I have plenty of experience with both as I was a mosh-pit rat before I was converted. And to answer your question about nose rings, yes, in this culture, I view them the same way I do tattoos.

    Now I'll get back to my death-scented scraff-n-sniff tats...

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "This is precisely why I walk around naked all day long. I am not a clothing rack! I am a human being in the image of God and you ought to be blessed by viewing that in it's full, magnficant glory!!!"

    C'mon man, I just had lunch and you're making me sick. Blech.

    And "magnificent glory"? Don't you mean "microscopic glory"? ha ha

    You set yourself up for that one.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jeromus said:
    ---
    *Ahem* Please get dressed before commenting. Thanks.
    ---

    Well, they DO have this dress code where I work...

    Jeromus said:
    ---
    I'm not trying to cause a stink about tattoos, it's my opinion.
    ---

    I understand that. I know many people who are on either side of this issue. However, I find it disturbing that you would state something as strongly as linking tattoos to "the smell of death", for instance, on a position that is "my opinion" and nothing more.

    Jeromus said:
    ---
    I consider it along the lines of avoiding every appearance of evil.
    ---

    Fine; but why do you think tattoos give the "appearance of evil" in the first place? In other words, this statement begs the question that tattoos are inherently evil or are like something else that is inherently evil. But what is inherently evil about a tattoo?

    Jeromus said:
    ---
    But just like your words reflect what is in your heart, getting a tattoo says something about what's in your heart also. If you want to argue that Rock music is OK, drinking beer in a bar (note: not against beer, just against bars), etc., that's your prerogative, but I still say "avoid every appearance of evil". Tattoo'd bar drinkers don't exactly gush forth with godliness in my view.
    ---

    A) You're judging by outward appearances, which makes you appear like a Pharasee to me...so you're not exactly "avoid[ing] every appearance of evil" here.

    B) You have to establish that there is something inherently wrong in 1) rock music, 2) bars, and 3) tattoos in order to claim that these things give the appearance of evil in the first place. But of course, there isn't anything inherently wrong with these things or else you wouldn't need to add the word "appearance" to it--you'd just say they are evil.

    So the question is, how does it give the appearance of evil to do something that is not in itself actually evil?

    Jeromus said:
    ---
    And believe me, I have plenty of experience with both as I was a mosh-pit rat before I was converted.
    ---

    So if you were a used car salesman before you converted, would used car salesmen be "the appearance of evil"?

    Okay...bad example.

    :-D

    Jeromus said:
    ---
    And to answer your question about nose rings, yes, in this culture, I view them the same way I do tattoos.
    ---

    So you admit that our culture view of nose rings is different and therefore the ability for Abraham's servant to give Rebekah a nose ring isn't relevant for our views of good/evil today; BUT the cultural relevance does NOT apply when it comes to tattoos? Why the double standard?

    ReplyDelete
  9. anonymous,

    Wow. I bet you're a real laugh-a-minute in your junior high PE class.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I've also heard the argument that tattoos are a sign of vanity, and a mark of worldliness. Granted, I think the argument relies on a certain amount of mindreading...I've heard this on puritanboards, so Paul has probably heard it too.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jeromus,

    You're not a canvus, so should you paint your body? if not, then are you against women wearing makeup?

    Furthermore, I've been gifted with the physical ability to grow pretty rapidly from lifting weights. I like to "sculpt" certain areas, just because it's an ability God has given me. Should I not "sculpt" my body? Would that be treating it like a piece of clay?

    Tattos don't smell after you get them. During the process, they have the smell of ink.

    I don't know why they "reflect the world's heart." Certainly they can be *used* to reflect what is in your heart. But the converse can also be true in a good way.

    I haven't seen the principle you claim is in Scripture actually in Scripture, and so am not dancing around anything. I am not telling you to get one. Whatever is not of faith, is sin.

    "Love God and do what you please." - Augustine.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Peter,

    I think you know that bars + tattoos + rock music don't usually equal godliness, no? Sure, the tattoo'd biker converted by God's grace may be a very godly man and love the Lord with all his might, but usually those who are saved out of that mire don't frolic around in it AFTER they're converted. That life is something they're saved FROM. Be that as it may, I don't deny that a Christian may have tattoos in bars while listening to rock music, but I wouldn't want to bet on it (cuz, you know, gambling is wrong :-). IMO, tattoos don't glorify God. There are very godly men that I know who got tattoos before they were converted and they regret it deeply.

    So, where do you want to draw the arbitrary line? Tats are fine, just no naughty stuff? Get a nice big one of the Westminster Assembly on your back, you'll be "TR" for sure.

    Paul,

    Make-up washes off, unless you're trying to defend those temporary tattoos you get in your Cracker Jacks. I'm glad you're so buff, but lifting weights isn't marring your body now is it? Come on, man. You know what tattoos represent in this world, you know the life style they are associated with, so why defend them? Because you have them, or want to continue to add to your human art collection? Or do you want to draw attention to yourself?

    Yes, love God and do what you please. But if you love God you will want to do what pleases Him. And, IMO, getting a seraph tattoo'd on your ankle isn't really up there on the list of things that please Him.

    Then again, maybe you could cover your whole body with tats from the Sistine Chapel. You know, tell the gospel story on your pectorals. Tattoo for good, not evil...

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jeromus,

    What does temporary have to do with a body being a "canvas?" If you're not a canvas, well, you're not a canvas, right? Is the side of a building a "canvas?" Can I "tag" it if I use washable spray paint? No, it's "not a canvas."

    At any rate, you just debunked your entire argument since tattoos can be removed! (thanks to postmillennial advances in technology! :-) j/k)

    And, why can I sculpt my body? Is it a piece of clay? Or, perhaps it's okay because it'reversable. To undue the "damage" I could eat junk food for a few years. But, it my body a "dumpster?" What will I do!?

    Your constraints are arbitrary, that's what I'm pointing out.

    Other than your arbitrary constraints, what else have you given us. Well, "IMHO" about sums it up. As a Christian I'm sure you know that you shouldn't be binding people's consciences with "IMHO's," right?

    I know what makeup represents. I know what bodybuilding represents. I know what getting "Nikes" instead of $15 K-Mart shoes represents. I know what getting a Lexus rather than a saturn represents. C'mon man, you know those things are associated with worldly wealth and vanity! Get real.

    So, unless you have some sort of biblical argument, backed up by exegesis, then you might want to re-think your dogmatism on this subject.

    Is God more glorified with my "seraph" tattoo on my ankle (seems a bit "girly," but who am I to judge), or with conscious binding arguments without a basis in Scripture?

    Anyway, you're inspiring me to get "T-Blogger" tatted across my stomach like Tu Pac! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  14. I haven't commented on this blog before, but I have been giggling through all these comments, so I felt the need to mention something...maybe some people just can't handle the pain involved, so they need to think up an ethical reason to condemn tattoos so they don't feel whimpish? Kidding...


    "Yes, love God and do what you please. But if you love God you will want to do what pleases Him. And, IMO, getting a seraph tattoo'd on your ankle isn't really up there on the list of things that please Him."

    If I were you, I wouldn't use my self admitted humble opinion to decifer that best pleases God...

    ReplyDelete
  15. http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/abc_to_take_some_heat/

    Coincidentially a heated discussion about tattoos is also going on at timblair.net. Someone raises the point that tattoos don't look as good once you're old, fat, and smelly. Think of the children PAul! *THINK* of the children!

    Maybe some of the atheists should get :::YAWN!!!::: tattooed across their butts? Don't ask me why, it's a suggestion.

    I think the real issue is WHY you're getting tattoos. If you shave you head, get lots of body piercings, and have skull and crossbones tattoos because you want people to think that you're going to beat them up, then the jokes on you friend. The JOKE is on *you*.

    ReplyDelete
  16. All righty then Paul, I guess we'll have to wait and see if those tats show up on your resurrected body. Do you think? If not, why not? I mean, they're OK with God right? And it doesn't say anywhere in Scripture you can't use certain words our culture would define as "swear words", so I suppose without proper exegesis I can't really say such language is really *bad*. The Holy Spirit makes rather clear the difference between Christians and the world. If you want to look like the world while professing to be of Christ, that's your gig. You answer to Christ, not me. I'm not binding anyone's conscience, but if someone's conscience is bound by what I said it's for a reason...

    Angela Brisby,

    And how shall I decipher what pleases God? Your opinion?

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Jeromus said:
    ---
    I think you know that bars + tattoos + rock music don't usually equal godliness, no?
    ---

    Oooh, good debate tactic there. :-) Instead of demonstrating your position, you just ask me to affirm it instead!

    Unfortunately for you, I disagree that bars + tattoos + rock music "don't usually equal godliness". I think each of those as they are have nothing to do with godliness or ungodliness. None of these things are ungodly in themselves, and just because ungodly people can use these things and enjoy them doesn't mean a Christian shouldn't.

    Again, the onus is on you to demonstrate how it is evil for a Christian to use these things/engage in these behaviors/whatever.

    Jeromus said:
    ---
    IMO, tattoos don't glorify God. There are very godly men that I know who got tattoos before they were converted and they regret it deeply.
    ---

    Just because someone associates something that is actually benign with a dark part of their life doesn't make the thing itself evil. Suppose that a married non-believer goes to museums to lust after the girls who are in there. He then becomes a Christian and, due to his past experience, decides to stay away from museums so as to not risk adultery. Does that make the museum itself evil? Does that make it wrong for me to go to a museum when I don't have the same past experience he does, and therefore not the same negative connotations?

    I imagine you'd say it'd be perfectly fine for me to do so.

    Now imagine it at a wider scale. How is it different if 10,000,000 people go to museums for the same adulterous purpose instead of just 1? How does that affect whether or not it is wrong for me to go?

    Again, you have to establish your argument, not just assume it and then say, "Well, it's just my opinion" when pressed...if you want me to accept it, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Peter,

    If your spiritual discernment is such that you don't see how tattoos, rock music, and bars are evil you are either:

    A) Too young to get into bars and therefore naive

    B) You're of age, but just never got into that scene (thank the Lord for that if it is so)

    For the sake of Christian charity I'll assume it's B. If you truly hold to your stated position, I expect you to get some tattoos (if you object, why? It's OK man, go ahead), spend some time in a bar tonight and listen to a lot of AC/DC. Continue to do this on a regular basis, I mean there's nothing inherently wrong with it. We'll see how your doing in about 8 months.

    C'mon man, do it. Be consistent. Live your doctrine.

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jeromus,

    And let's see if women will have Estée Lauder in heaven so they can paint the canvas of their resurrected face. If they don't, why not?

    Don't tell me that your argument for binding my conscience boils down to a "what if" story about what my resurrected body will look like in heaven. I mean, will they have a "Gold's" in heaven? Why lift weights, then? Must not glorify God, huh? It looks like your arhument is:

    1. If it's not in heaven then it doesn't glorify God.

    2. Tattoos will not be on our resurrected bodies in heaven.

    3. Therefore they do not glorify God.

    4. If something does not glorify God we should not do it.

    5. Tattoos do not glorify God.

    6. Therefore, we should not get tattoos.

    Okay, let's plug something else in:

    1. If it's not in heaven then it doesn't glorify God.

    2. McDonalds will not be in heaven.

    3. Therefore McDonalds does not glorify God.

    4. If something does not glorify God we should not do it.

    5. Mcdonalds does not glorify God.

    6. Therefore, we should not eat McDonalds.

    And, it's not *always* wrong to "say a bad word." Depends on the context. Or, the word that *was* considered bad could change. So, "bad" language isn't a simple open shut case either. Furthermore, there is some Scriptural warrant against bad language - unwholesome speech. So, a case could be made here. Where do you have an *inkling* of a case against tattoos?

    So, make sure you don't "look like the world." Stop buying name brand stuff, the world wastes their money. Don't get yours kids a play station, the world plays video games. Don't listen to secular music, that's the world's music. Don't go and see Spider Man 3, the world does that. Don't eat meat "offered to idols," the world does that!

    It's fine if you want to think tattos are wrong for you since for you to get one would not be of faith, but let's not mkae this a universal moral dictum. And, remember, Paul sides with the stronger brother.

    ReplyDelete
  20. ======
    All righty then Paul, I guess we'll have to wait and see if those tats show up on your resurrected body. Do you think? If not, why not? I mean, they're OK with God right?
    =======

    Well Jesus also says that in the coming age, men and women will not marry. Going by your own criteria then, men and women should not marry in this age either. You're not married, are you? I guess we'll have to see if a person's marriage will still be recognized in their resurrected body.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jermus said,

    "Peter,

    If your spiritual discernment is such that you don't see how tattoos, rock music, and bars are evil you are either:

    A) Too young to get into bars and therefore naive

    B) You're of age, but just never got into that scene (thank the Lord for that if it is so)"


    Let's see, there's a bar here in the town of Escondido where a live called R O'Sullivian's Irish Pub. Now, this bar is frequented by many of the professors at Westminster Theological Seminary, as well as many of the students. They will drink beers, and smoke cigars at this bar.

    I assume you'd tell all of them that they are acting like the world? None of them fit into (a), and they obviously don't fit in (b).

    Perhaps you're the naive one?

    I mean, next think you know, old Jeromus will tell me that I can't take my son to the Baseball game because the stands are filled with beer swilling sports fans who occassionally swear at Barry Bonds after he hits a homerun off Jake Peavy!

    ReplyDelete
  22. OK Paul, I guess if WTS professors and students do it, it must be OK. Even Spurgeon smoked a stogie once in a while. CS Lewis spent a fair amount of time in a pub too, so there can't be any problem with it.

    Maintaining your health in this world via lifting weights is perfectly legitimate. We are to take care of our bodies. Women wearing make-up is to enhance their appearance. Your counter examples don't fly Paul. No one is arguing against make-up (unless you're talking Tammy Faye style, then I may have a problem :-) or weight lifting. What I'm opposing is marking up your skin with cartoon characters, unicorns, skulls, Mom or whatever. Your body is not your own, so I suppose if you can show me how tattoos DO glorify God perhaps I will reconsider my position. But if you want to compare tats with weight lifting and make up, my current thinking on the matter isn't in danger. The world breathes, talks, goes to work, etc., are you going to cite those examples then ask me if I do them? Then accuse me of being worldly? C'mon Paul, you know the difference. We are in the world, dressing in a fashionable yet modest way is reasonable. Driving a nice car is reasonable if you can afford it. I'm not a Mennonite. We're not to stand out by looking like rejects. You're trying to use perfectly legitimate things to defend tattoos, but they're not in the same category. And I've been around them all my life. I was riding on a Harley @ 3 yrs old , my father and my brother have more tattoos than a Puritan has subpoints. I lived and breathed in a tattoo culture, and I know the fruit produced by that culture. So it is naive to think that tattoos are a neutral subject. Be that as it may, I doubt I'll convince you otherwise. So, brother Paul, get tattoos for Jesus.

    And, though I live in NY, I've followed the SF Giants since I was a kid. Bonds is a lamentable character, but a great baseball player. Too bad he's most likely a cheater. I still like seeing him pummel the Padres though :-)


    Semper,

    Surely you don't think marriage and tattoos are in the same category, do you?

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Jeromus,

    What you fail to note is that I'm taking YOUR PREMISE and applying it to other areas which, apparently, you agree are absurd.

    SO, if your body is not a canvas, it's not a canvas!

    All of your reasons for not getting tattoos have been shown to have counter examples which force you to look arbitrary.

    It thus boils down to the claim that "tattoos are wrong." All this "canvas" business and "your body is not your body" business, were just slogans intended to puff up a flabby assertion.

    Look, you obviously grew up in an environment where people *used* tattoos to *express* their pagan mindset.

    Likewise, I grew up in a family that would get very heated over football and baseball games! You don't know the sinfulness that sports leads to! There is no God glorifying reason to watch baseball.... and it teaches kids to chew 'baco!

    hopefully you get my point.

    And, since you already have the assumption that "tattoos are wrong" then I don't think I could show you a God glorifying tattoo. Actually, it's the *heart motive* behind the tattoo. Should we paint angels to glorify God, or is a common barn owl also God gloyfing? Should we all be preachers? or can someone be a grabage man too?

    So, though you may not agree, I don't see how my tattoos of the 5 solas dishonor God. But, of course, if you have an a priori dislike for tattoos, they mere fact that *I have them,* dishonors God.

    At the end of the day let's admit that you're using your *experience* to determine conduct, rather than God's holy word. I'd try to work on that area before you spend time telling people about what is God dishonoring. Not showing thyself a workman approved isn't honoring to God.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Paul,

    I got your point there. Fair enough, it's just an opinion then. I've got no biblical ground to stand on. In fact, I think I'm going to glorify God by getting the 95 theses tattoo'd on the back of my thigh. Yeah, it won't be easy, but glorifying God is hard work :-)

    Anyway, I'm a peacable guy. So, given that my arrow fell to the ground, I'll pass on by.

    Solas Tattus

    ReplyDelete
  25. Jeromus said:
    ---
    If your spiritual discernment is such that you don't see how tattoos, rock music, and bars are evil you are either:

    A) Too young to get into bars and therefore naive

    B) You're of age, but just never got into that scene (thank the Lord for that if it is so)
    ---

    If your logical abilities are so poor that you cannot see a false dichotomy, you are either

    A) Public school educated

    B) A Southern Baptist.

    I will assume for Christian charity that it is A....

    Jeromus said:
    ---
    If you truly hold to your stated position, I expect you to get some tattoos (if you object, why? It's OK man, go ahead), spend some time in a bar tonight and listen to a lot of AC/DC.
    ---

    Just because I don't have a problem with getting a tattoo doesn't mean I want to get one. It'd be like saying, "You think eating boiled spinach is okay, so why don't you just go ahead and do it?" Um...because I don't want to, maybe?

    As to AC/DC. Well, I'm thunderstruck that you would think I'm on the highway to hell simply because of them. I suppose if I listen to them, I'll have to do a jailbreak and then I'll be back in black doing dirty deeds (done dirt cheap!). Unfortunately for you, rock and roll ain't noise pollution. So have a drink on me, shoot to thrill, shake a leg, and let there be rock. Indeed, I think I speak for all of us when I say that for those about to rock...we salute you.

    But have no fear. I never listen to AC/DC. I don't even know who they are. But who made who anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Peter,

    OK brother, glorify God with your AC/DC. I'm sure the one who said, "Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things." through the apostle Paul doesn't have any problem with Angus and the boys. I wonder what Bon Scott thinks about his old band right about now. However, I don't think the broad nature of Phil. 4:8 will let you get by with it, but I'm sure you'll try won't you?

    Solas Angus

    ReplyDelete
  27. Why do you suppose King David's response to ways of lost pagans was, "My eyes shed streams of water, because they (unbelievers) do not keep Your law." (Ps. 119:136)? Seems odd doesn't it? I mean, the message of pagans expressed through the medium of music is just "neutral entertainment" right? Maybe David didn't know that we're free in Christ...

    ReplyDelete
  28. jeromus,

    No, my opinion means nothing when it comes to glorifying God. Neither does yours. God's Word IN CONTEXT, however, does a great job.

    I am not advocating getting inked for the sole purpose of witnessing, but I have have the honor of glorifying God in this way. Since all theology is systematic and interconnected, I have been able to, by God's grace, explain why one doesn't need to be Jewish to have the Star of David tattooed on them. Great springboard for the Gospel! I have been able to use each of mine as a way not only to show that God is not a strict fun-denying old man in the sky, but also to speak the Gospel to others who ask about them.

    Of course all mine so far are on my back (my fear of needles won't allow me to watch) so my using them as a witnessing tool only goes so far as docs and midwives are concerned. But I'm gonna get brave and get the next one on the top of my foot I think...

    ReplyDelete
  29. Angela,

    Maybe a seraph will be nice on the foot ;-)

    Seriously though, why stop at tattoos? Show people that God is REALLY a lot of fun by getting your tongue and eye brows pierced. Whoa, then they'll want to be Christians for sure!

    Anyway, I appreciate your zeal and your heart, but tats aren't the way to do it. How about being a joyful, loving, helpful, faithful Christian who enjoys life and serving the King?

    That will do a lot more for your witnessing than having a seraph on your foot.

    And be prepared for the kids to come home with tattoos you don't approve of. They will follow your example...

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Jeromus,

    A) Why are you so upset that other people disagree with what you admitted was merely your opinion?

    B) I didn't bring up AC/DC--you did. I was merely having fun with you. Apparently, obvious sarcasm is too obvious for you. I shall try to be more obscure.

    C) I've asked you several times to demonstrate your position. You have thus far not done so. You've instead continued with rhetorical questions which, in fact, beg the question.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Jeromus,

    Good suggestion, but sorry, no seraphs for me ;)

    "Seriously though, why stop at tattoos? Show people that God is REALLY a lot of fun by getting your tongue and eye brows pierced. Whoa, then they'll want to be Christians for sure!"

    Do you think the tea-totallers did a good job of making people want to be Chirstians?
    Keeping to God's holy standard is hard enough without adding man-made standards of "holiness".

    "Anyway, I appreciate your zeal and your heart, but tats aren't the way to do it. How about being a joyful, loving, helpful, faithful Christian who enjoys life and serving the King?"

    How about being a joyful, loving, helpful, faithful, tatted Christian who enjoys life and serving the King? There's nothing in God's Word that says they can't co-exist...

    "That will do a lot more for your witnessing than having a seraph on your foot."

    I agree. But man-made rule are more detrimental to your witness than enjoying beauty and art in a creative way.

    "And be prepared for the kids to come home with tattoos you don't approve of. They will follow your example..."

    How many kids with tattoos have parents with tattoos? Even if hubby and I had no tattoos at all, if we fail to teach our children responsibility, they may come home with tattoos we don't approve of. This is like saying that because hubby and I enjoy drinking in a very moderate responsible way, we need to be prepared for our kids to become drunkards. Of course, in an effort to raise our kids in the fear and admonition of the Lord, we will teach our children responsibility and moderation. We will teach them that while tattoos are not forbidden anywhere in God's inspired Word, if you get a tattoo in a dumb place, you may have a hard time getting good employment, or that a particular potential spouse may not have a preference for tattoos, etc...

    That's just a part of parenting we all go through. Not a good reson for an eleventh Commndment...

    Respectfully, Angela

    ReplyDelete
  32. Jeromus,

    ""Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things."

    So does that include or exclude the 1st century Christians who looked forward and dwelled on the chowing down of some pig that was offered to a pagan idiol?

    How come when a pagan (call him Lucious) did it they were like ole Angus and the boys, but when, say, some Christian did it (call him Ditimus), they were just fine?

    I wonder what Lucious thinks about his old eating habits right about now? I wonder what Ditimus thinks about them?

    So, an act which had *pagan connotations* associated with it could be *both* immoral and moral!

    Anyway, if you don't have any implicit or explicit biblical evidence for your claim that is not subject to reductio ad absurdums, then will you admit you're trying to bind the conscious of men free in Christ?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Peter,

    A) Who said I'm upset? I didn't.

    B) Oh, that was sarcasm. So, you don't listen to AC/DC. Great. But you were defending rock music, bars, and tattoos as perfectly fine things for Christians, right?

    C) If by demonstrate you mean cite chapter and verse, there is no specific reference to tattoos outside of Lev. 19:28. So, I guess you'll just concede you can't get tats for the dead, but it's OK for the living. No skull & cross bones now!

    The question is "why tattoo?" The motive is either:

    1) I am not satisfied with the way God made me because He left me without cool pictures engraven on my skin.

    2) I would like others to take notice of me, especially the babes

    in most cases with unbelievers it includes (at least subconsciously)...

    3) I hate God and tattoos are a way of marring His image in me. I'll look more like a demon than a man.

    If you can show me some other motive for it, I'll listen, but if you go with "I got this little tattoo for Jesus" I don't think I'll be convinced.

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Paul,

    Why avoid every appearance of evil then? I mean, what was the apostle getting at? If something having *pagan connotations* could be both moral or immoral, why would Paul make such a statement?

    Regardless, you can't get around Phil. 4:8 unless you're going to assert that rock music/bars/tattoos are pure, lovely, of good repute, etc. Are tattoos of good repute?

    I'm not binding any man's conscious. As I said, if it's bound, it's for a reason.

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Jeromus,

    You're ASSUMING that tattoos are EVIL?

    You have yet to prove this assumption.

    But, EVEN IF THEY HAD immoral people practicing it, that still does not mean that it is evil for US to practice it, much like easting meat offered to an idol.

    I suggest you read a few commentaries in 1 Thess. 5:22.

    The text should be read to avoid *actual* evil, or *actual* evil in whatever *form* it *appears.*

    See here for the greek:

    http://www.crivoice.org/appearance.html

    and here as well:

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1797

    And Calvin thought it was referring to holding to doctrine which has not been proven false, but didn't sit well:

    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom42.vi.vii.iv.html

    Is not the word of God and our conscious enough? To invoke your rendering, it's not. Your rendering leads to absurdities.

    Drinking a beer at a ball game could "appear" evil. Smoking a cigar outside a coffee shop could "appear" evil. Or, take me. Before I got married recently, I lived with my mom for a while to help her pay her bills. She is divorced. I was not married. We had no wedding rings. To all APPEARANCES we looked like a man and women living together out of wed lock. Should I have "avoided" that? Sometimes we would go to the store together too! Play with her dog. Your interpretation makes this immoral.

    Finally, I've already shown your absurdities on more than one occassion. There's nothing for me to "get around." First, the passage tells me of what to THINK about. So, should I not THINK about the baseball game? Is that "morally good?" What about if I THINK about going to the bathroom? Is that "good repute?"

    Perhaps you're talking about actions that follow the thinking. But, a bar, a tattoo, etc., is not evil in ITSELF. It is the HEART ATTITUDE that goes behind the action. A pile of cocaine sitting on a table is not evil in itself. It's what you do with the pile - in one case, break the law by snorting it and God's law by getting intoxicated.

    I mean, all you're doing is throwing a verse out there, importing your question begging assumption on to it, and then saying, "HA!, how do you get around this?" Are you an apostate who is jealous of my liberty and takes offense at (i) in my post. Trying to prove to yourself that your apostasy wasn't due to your Appalachain Mountain Fundy approach to Bible? If you're a Christian, you haven't got around Romans 14 or our other arguments.

    I mean, c'mon, you can't just assume what is in dispute and then say Phil. 4:8 proves your point!

    Yes, tattoos are not evil because the word of God has not said that they are. To use your EXPERIECE as the standard of what things to throw into Phil.4:8 and Thess 5 is bad scholarship.

    It indeed is true that modern evangelicals start with experience, the reformed start with the word of God.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Wow, from discussion about tattoos to charges of apostasy. Ouch.

    Paul, tattoos are not even of good repute among unbelievers. Generally those who have tattoos are viewed as the "dregs", lazy and licentious, and worse. I'll concede that tattoos may not be evil in and of themselves (although I think marking up your body that way is wrong, certainly not beautiful because the body is beautiful without them, but hey, apparently that's just me). However, it's a practice whose heart-root is rebellion to God and the world is steeped in it. The question then is, why tattoo? If you're a new creation in Christ, why attach yourself to the practices of a pagan world? Do you want to go as far as you can go with your Christian liberty just because you can? This is the first time I've had to oppose a Christian about tattoos. I've been a member of a Reformed church for over 10 years and I've never had anyone try to even attempt to defend tattoos. In fact, the subject is not even a question. I guess the Holy Spirit just layed this conviction on our collective hearts, weird huh?

    So, why tattoo? What's your underlying motive, really?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Jeromus,

    I covered the "dregs" part in my post. You might want to familiarize yourself with the counter-arguments.

    The rest of your post is, again, a list of mere assertions. You keep *assuming* that its wrong.

    But, put it this way, I *did not* get my 5 solas with rebellion in my heart. They mean a lot to me and so I got them tattooed on my body.

    You have yet to show how this is wrong. All your reasons have been refuted, your Bible verses suspect, and your position nothing but a mere assertion based on bad experience.

    But that can't be the guide otherwise why drink? People hjave had bad experiences with that. And, maybe fine wine or whiskey is okay, but everyone knows that "beer" is for lazy, redneck, dregs.

    You can't take your bad experience and make a general moral rule out of it. And, you certainly can't take your subjective feelings about what "looks good" as a standard either. I don't think short hair looks good on a woman, especially a young one. So, should I say that it's immoral for women to cut their hair?

    Despite what you may feel, you are binding people's consciouses. And, as a reformed Christian, you should follow sola Scriptura. Not solo Experientia.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Jeromus said:
    ---
    Who said I'm upset? I didn't.
    ---

    I'm basing it off your comments. Note by "upset" I simply mean that you are arguing from passion rather than logic (in other words, your reason is controlled by your emotion here).

    Jeromus said:
    ---
    Oh, that was sarcasm. So, you don't listen to AC/DC. Great. But you were defending rock music, bars, and tattoos as perfectly fine things for Christians, right?
    ---

    A) I do listen to AC/DC occasionally; they are far from my favorite band.

    B) No, I am not "defending rock music, bars, and tattoos as perfectly fine things for Christians" yet because you haven't offered an argument so that they require a defense in the first place.

    Jeromus said:
    ---
    If by demonstrate you mean cite chapter and verse, there is no specific reference to tattoos outside of Lev. 19:28. So, I guess you'll just concede you can't get tats for the dead, but it's OK for the living. No skull & cross bones now!
    ---

    If Scripture says X, I don't argue X + Y.

    You do realize that by adding to Scripture you are in essence claiming your view is equal in authority to Scripture, don't you?

    As to your "motives" those are hardly the only options available. Further, they're (to be frank) stupid in an argument. For instance, you claim:

    "I am not satisfied with the way God made me because He left me without cool pictures engraven on my skin."

    By the same token, I assume you never get a hair cut or take a shower or wear clothing or...

    "I would like others to take notice of me, especially the babes"

    I suppose you must be single and will always remain single then. I mean, any attempt to get a wife (no matter how Biblical!) is an attempt to get others to take notice of you!! :-o OH THE HORROR!!!

    " I hate God and tattoos are a way of marring His image in me. I'll look more like a demon than a man."

    How do you know what demons look like?

    Even if an evil person has this as their motive, how does that affect whether or not a righteous person can do the same thing?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Jeromus, How much time do you spend with the tattooed "dregs" of society?

    "The question is "why tattoo?" The motive is either:

    1) I am not satisfied with the way God made me because He left me without cool pictures engraven on my skin.

    2) I would like others to take notice of me, especially the babes

    in most cases with unbelievers it includes (at least subconsciously)...

    3) I hate God and tattoos are a way of marring His image in me. I'll look more like a demon than a man"

    ...clearly, none.

    To dogmatically say the motive is either x, y, or z, when you don't have a clue is pretty arrogant.

    There are many more reasons, and you would know that if you actually befriended a tattooed person. Since you don't run in that circle, you are judging with from a far with blanket judgments.

    And there are a pletura of tattooed Christians out there! Even doctrinally sound ones!

    Maybe, just maybe, there are some people out there who love God's truths so intensly that they want to be forever identified with those truths. Whether that truth is T.U.L.I.P. tattooed on their back, or the beauty of some part of God's magnificent creation.

    By the way, a good many of Christians I personally know, have their tattoos in inconspicuous places precisely because they don't want to be noticed by others, or thought of as "cool". It's a personal thing for them. And many just don't want to be judged by fundamentalists. They know they have the liberty to enjoy tattoos. By the way, the only negative attention I have recieved from my tattoos have been from fundie "christians" who think their holiness depends on a list of rules. I have only recieved positive comments from the pagan world about my tattoos (which are very obviously Christian in nature).

    ReplyDelete
  40. Paul, you can't lump tattoos in with your absurd examples. There are a lot of things that are important to me, but I don't get them tattoo'd on my body. Anyway, we've been spinning wheels for a while now. May God bless you in your service to Him.

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Angela,

    Apparently you haven't read my previous comments, I've been around the tattoo culture since before you were born. My father was a biker. So, I've spent a lot of time with the "dregs" of society. I grew up with them and I was one. So, I know exactly what the motives are, vividly.

    Anyway, I didn't intend to offend you with my comments. I'm sorry if I did.

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "How vain painting is, exciting admiration by its resemblance to things of which we do not admire the originals!" - Blaise Pascal

    ReplyDelete
  43. Jeromus, I did read your earlier comments. I am not referring to the dregs before I was born...now days, things are VERY different. Before my time, there was the conservative good, and the liberal evil. Everything that the evil did was considered evil, and the fundamentalist good, wouldn't go near any of their practices, no alcohol, no card-playing, etc...everything the good did was supposed to be good. Not that that was necessarily the case.

    Now, the Christian culture at large is realizing that God's Word didn not prohibit many of these things, and we are enjoying God's good gifts with gladness instead of guilt. There are some however, who have yet to see these liberties. Their consciences are bound by previous "christian" traditions and taboos. But that's all they are...traditions and taboos.

    ReplyDelete
  44. And Angela,

    You said:

    "I have only recieved positive comments from the pagan world about my tattoos (which are very obviously Christian in nature)."

    Why do you suppose that is?
    Why do pagans like your tattoos, but you label Christians as "fundies" when they don't?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Jeromus said:
    ---
    My father was a biker. So, I've spent a lot of time with the "dregs" of society. I grew up with them and I was one. So, I know exactly what the motives are, vividly.
    ---

    This is the key to understanding why it is impossible for Jeromus to view this subject objectively. He has the blinders of a personal negative experience in place. As such, he assumes that it is universally negative to have tattoos since his own experience has been negative.

    This is, unfortunately, a logical fallacy. It engages a bit in the error of composition (where you judge the whole by a part) and is likewise a hasty generalization (the fallacy of an insufficient sample).

    This is not to minimize his negative experience. I'm sure it was quite bad, and that when he was in this culture it was obviously evil. Thus, there is quite obviously a profound emotional/psychological affect on Jeromus regarding tattoos. But he cannot use that experience to make universal claims.

    This is why I pointed out that Jeromus is arguing from passion instead of reason, emotion rather than logic. While he doesn't have a rational argument, he does have a very intense emotional argument. It is personal to him, but as such it is a subjective argument.

    Thus, the objective claim (that tattoos qua tattoos are not evil) has been (semi-) granted by Jeromus (e.g. "I'll concede that tattoos may not be evil in and of themselves"); however, Jeromus's subjective opinion is that they are still wrong.

    The philosophical and theological question, therefore, is simple: does a subjective opinion outweigh an objective claim? I'd be interested in seeing how Jeromus answers this.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Your last comments posted before mine.

    I'm around the "dregs" frequently. I can't escape them since I'm related to some of them. It wasn't all that long ago I was in the middle of it, as an enthusiastic participant (I'm not that much older than you). I don't view tattoos as gifts from God or liberties, but rather as chains, but we've gone over this ground already, no?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Wow Peter, you've somehow entered into my soul.

    "does a subjective opinion outweigh an objective claim?"

    If you're talking about raw apologetics, I suppose not. Congrats, you win the apologetic argument! Way to go! Let the chest beating begin. Christian hordes can now receive their tattoos. Your noble cause has been vindicated.

    I'm defeated.

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "Why do pagans like your tattoos, but you label Christians as "fundies" when they don't?"

    I don't label Christians who don't like my tattoos as fundies...It doesn't bother me one bit if someone doesn't like my tattoos, or even if someone doen't have a preference for tattoos in general.

    I reserve the term "fundie" for those who are imposing their ideas of holiness on others without the biblical warrant to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Angela,

    But why do pagans like them? You get no resistence from them, but you do from Christians. Why is that?

    ReplyDelete
  50. " I don't view tattoos as gifts from God or liberties, but rather as chains, but we've gone over this ground already, no?"

    Yes, we have...and just as has been mentioned here many times before...the same argument can apply to anything. For some people alcohol, or fast-food, or cigars, or sex, or excersise are chains. But that doesn't make all those things evil. There are right ways to use them all in a way that glorifies God.

    ok, done for today, gotta go be a mommy now...

    ReplyDelete
  51. ok, I gotta answer this before I go...

    you said:
    "But why do pagans like them? You get no resistence from them, but you do from Christians. Why is that? "

    But I did not say I got resistence from Christians (capital "C")

    I said:
    "By the way, the only negative attention I have recieved from my tattoos have been from fundie "christians" who think their holiness depends on a list of rules. "

    Does this sound like a Christian to you?

    I have recieved NO criticism from anyone who has been doctrinally sound, loves the bretheren, and has a biblical view of how we are made holy before a sovereign God.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Angela,

    So christians who disagree are unsound, don't love the brethren, and don't have a biblical understanding of how we are made holy before a sovereign God? That's an uncharitable conclusion to make about someone who is against tattoos, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  53. My assessment of their doctrine had nothing to do with their critiscism of tattoos. Is just so happened that those who did criticize were also unsound, etc...

    ok, really done for today now.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Gotcha,

    I thought you were lumping me in there.

    Didn't mean to hold you up from the little ones :-)

    ReplyDelete
  55. Jeromus said:
    ---
    Wow Peter, you've somehow entered into my soul.
    ---

    All I did is read what you wrote. I assumed you weren't lying.

    Now, do you have an argument or not?

    Jeromus said:
    ---
    "does a subjective opinion outweigh an objective claim?"

    If you're talking about raw apologetics, I suppose not. Congrats, you win the apologetic argument! Way to go! Let the chest beating begin. Christian hordes can now receive their tattoos. Your noble cause has been vindicated.
    ---

    So you admit that your position is invalid, yet you still adhere to it unreasonably. Which makes you an unreasonable person.

    I'll stick with the Truth over emotionalism. And because of that, let me point out that you are sinning if you condemn someone for something that is not condemned by God.

    "Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, 'As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.' So then each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother." (Romans 14:10-13).

    Jeromus, by you saying tattoos are a sin despite not being able to demonstrate this and, in fact, actually acknowledging that you can't demonstrate it at all, you are putting a stumbling block in the way of your brothers in Christ. You are sinning.

    So either get some arguments to demonstrate how your position is valid or repent of your sinful behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Jeromus says,

    "Paul, you can't lump tattoos in with your absurd examples. There are a lot of things that are important to me, but I don't get them tattoo'd on my body. Anyway, we've been spinning wheels for a while now. May God bless you in your service to Him."

    Unfortunately Jeromus isn't keeping track of *his own arguments!*

    He hasn't shown how my counter-examples "don't work."

    For example, he said, "your body is not a canvas, it's not your own."

    So, I took his logic and asked about women painting on something that is both not their own, and not a canvas.

    Jeromus' reply was "you can wash off makeup."

    Okay, so the logic is this:

    "Your body is not a canvas and is not your own, so you can paint on it as long as you can wash it off."

    I pointed out that (a) tattoos are removable and (b) the logic seems odd. Let's look at a more neutral example:

    "A building is not my own and is not a canvas. Therefore, don't spray pain on the side of it!"

    Okay, gotcha. But, here comes Jeromus telling the owner that his tagging of the building is acceptable since he used "washable" spray paint!

    As I said, Jeromus, if your body is "not a canvas," then "it's not a canvas."

    This is just *one example* of how my counter arguments scored.

    I further have addressed every single support from Scripture Jeromus thought he had.

    At the end of the day, his entire argument is this:

    "I think tattoos are immoral because I knew immoral people who had them, therefore they are immoral for any one who would get them."

    ReplyDelete
  57. Vytautus,

    Since when did you start holding to sola Pascalus?

    Let's remember how art was viewed in the reformation, and the comeback it made from how it had went downhill from the nominalists and humanists.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Paul- Since when did you start holding to sola Pascalus?

    Vytautas- I needed a good philosopher after Scriptualism was trashed. So its my way of studing the history of philosophy.

    Paul- Let's remember how art was viewed in the reformation, and the comeback it made from how it had went downhill from the nominalists and humanists.

    Vytautas- I suppose you got this from Schaffer's How Shall We Then Live. Just a guess; i'm not pinning it on you. I really don't know nominalists were known for bad art. Should I study the history of art as well?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Peter and Paul,

    This is an interesting discussion, if I may interject here I think we need to get back to the primary text in question, namely Lev. 19:28. You (Paul) mentioned in your post that you didn't get any of your tattoos for the dead and that the prohibition God makes against tattoos has to do with ceremonial law, etc. However if you look at the verse in question it states,

    "You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead, nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord"

    Is it your assertion that making any cuts in your body for the dead is wrong, but making cuts in your body for any other reason is all right and falls under the category of Christian liberty? And how do you know the second part of the verse, "nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves" is in reference to the dead? Perhaps there is something in the original Hebrew that would make this clear?

    To disregard Lev. 19:28 as simply referring to ceremonial law is a bit arbitrary. The verses around it deal with moral prohibitions, for example Lev. 19:29, "Do not profane your daughter by making her a harlot, so that the land may not fall to harlotry, and the land become full of lewdness." Does harlotry have to do with ceremonial law or moral law? Or consider verse 26, "You shall not eat anything with the blood, nor practice divination or soothsaying." Does divination have to do with ceremonial law or moral law? It seems kind of arbitrary to say verse 28 is only ceremonial when it is surrounded by verses addressing morality. Could this be a convenient way for you to remove this prohibition of tattoos because you have them, like them, and want to get more?

    Personally I wouldn't dogmatically assert that tattoos are inherently sinful. It is my opinion that they are wrong, and I believe my opinion is informed by Scripture. I do know this though, that if they cause your brother (see Jeromus) to stumble, then for the sake of that brother you should be willing to forego your Christian liberty. I just don't think your case is as clear cut as you seem to think it is. And I may add that, given the baggage tattoos carry in this world, anything that would hinder your usefulness in ministering the gospel (such as a possible stumbling block to those who won't give your message a hearing because of your tattoos) should be dropped. It's not worth it, whether it's legitimate or not.

    Now, I've made my case on biblical grounds. I know you disagree at this point, but please don't accuse me of being a fundie tea-totaler, OK?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Aaron Mills,

    First, let's admit that you didn't *make* a biblical *case.* You basically brought Leviticus 19:28 back into the discussion and said "how do you know it's not talking about all kinds of tattoos?"

    As far as the cutting goes, give me a context. I'd probably classify most cases as a violation of the general equity of the 6th commandment.

    No doubt there was moral connotations intended by all the laws, but this section refers to the "holiness laws." The Jews are specifically being spearated from the pagan nations around them. The pagan practices of cutting one's beard to please the gods, cutting and tattooing one's self to please the god, and cultic prostitution for pagan gods, are what is being referred to.

    So, being a prostitute has to do with the moral law as instances of adultary, etc., in this instance, even though it is indeed immoral to prostitute one's self according, what is specifically being referred to is the pagan practices of cultic prostitution and how Israel is to not practice even this. SOme may think prostitution is wrong, unless it's done at the temple, for a god.

    It's clear that the entire context is about the practices of the pagan nations around them. And so these laws fit under what is referred to as the "holiness code."

    All of these specific practices were *clearly* religious. This is unavoidable from the context.

    The word for tattoo, “qa aqa” means literally “to cut." And so very well we could have the same kind of thing referred to here as the cutting for the dead. But, even if the tattooing was not for the dead, it was clearly a *pagan religious practice,* as *all* the laws being referred to here are.

    Indeed, even the cutting of the hair is viewed by many as referring to the pagan "bowl-cut". This was a cut intended to make your head look like a planet. Clearly we have a religious practice.

    The Israelites were to have a gtotally separate religion. The were to be set apart (holy) from the nations around them:

    Lev. 19:1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: 'Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy.

    I saw on your profile that you were reformed. Perhaps you go to the OPC? they agree on their official site with what I'm saying here:

    http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=170

    And, as Ra Mclaughlin of Third Mill, a reformed think tank, state on this very issue:

    "When Christ came, however, he tore down the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:12ff.). Specifically, this means that the laws that were given in order to separate Israel from the rest of the nations are now counter-productive if applied in the same way that ancient Israel observed them."

    http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99786.qna/category/pt/page/questions/site/iiim

    And so for the reasons above I don't think you have anything resembling a "biblical case."

    The last issue to deal with is the nature of the "stumbling block." I doubt ole Jeromus will be getting any tattoos, so I don't think he'll stumble in that way. But if he does based on my arguments, then that means he will have ceased to believe that they are immoral, hence he wouldn't be stumbling.

    As far as an exegetical look at Romans 14 and the nature of a "stumbling block," I refer you to Kenneth Gentry's excellent discussion of Christian Liberty in "God Gave Wine," specifically pages 111-115.

    His conclusion, though, is that the *nature8 of a stumbling block is not talking about doing things which may "peterb" other believers, but *enticing the* to commit "overtly sinful behavior".

    ~PM

    ReplyDelete
  61. Man, Paul answered it all before I could :-P

    Oh well. I can still agree!

    Paul said:
    ---
    No doubt there was moral connotations intended by all the laws, but this section refers to the "holiness laws." The Jews are specifically being spearated from the pagan nations around them.
    ---

    Indeed, this is very obvious given the quoted passage: "Do not profane your daughter by making her a harlot, so that the land may not fall to harlotry, and the land become full of lewdness."

    While this particular command can be derrived from other passages that are dealing with objective morality, this passage itself is specifically dealing with the Holy Land itself. That is, the command isn't "Don't make your daughter a harlot or you will go to hell" it is "Do not make your daughter a harlot or you will profane the land."

    Naturally, the fact that something is mentioned in one place as part of the holiness separation concept doesn't mean that it isn't in another place as a moral imperative. But in this case, there is no other place where tattoos are condemned, whereas the prohibitions against divination, harlotry, etc. are found in many other places.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Paul,

    I stand corrected, it wasn't a *biblical case*, I just turned the discussion back to the verse in question.

    As far as the cutting goes, what context *would* make it an appropriate and legitimate practice? I can't think of one. I guess you would say getting a tattoo is the only one right? Regardless, I admit the context of the prohibition is "not doing it for the dead" but do we conclude we can makes cuts for any other reason? It seems kind of absurd that this would be the intended meaning. Could the meaning rather be "you shouldn't make cuts or tattoos in your body, especially for the dead."? That appears to make more sense of the verse.

    I don't deny anything of what you said about the verses in question having particular application to pagan religious practices (you know, I always did have an innate aversion of "bowl-cuts" :-), however I do think those verses have a NT application with regard to the holiness of believers. Otherwise the verses have nothing to say about the Christian life at all.

    Although the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile has has been removed in Christ, Christians are still "a holy people" set apart from the world unto God. Ra McLaughlin said:

    "Specifically, this means that the laws that were given in order to separate Israel from the rest of the nations are now counter-productive if applied IN THE SAME WAY that ancient Israel observed them." emphasis mine.

    We don't apply them in the same way, but there is a NT application of them and I am more comfortable saying that tattoos are prohibited now just like they were then, for the dead or the living. Unbelievers should be able to look at you and see a difference between you and the world, it will lend credence to your life and message. Now, there's obviously more to your testimony than physical appearance, but it is a part of your testimony to others of God's grace in your life.

    And as far as stumbling goes, you are correct. It would have been better for me to say that you should avoid causing an offense (which is different than a stumbling block). The disposition of a Christian shouldn't be that he will press his Christian liberty as far as he can and if it bothers someone else, well that's too bad--that's their problem. Scripture makes clear our focus as Christians is upon loving and caring for others more than ourselves. Even if we allow that tattoos are an issue of individual Christian liberty, that liberty does not have to be used.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Peter,

    Just because the prohibition isn't explicity mentioned elsewhere, like harlotry or divination, doesn't mean the prohibition doesn't apply. Does God have to repeat Himself for His directives to be taken seriously? Now it may not have the prominence of harlotry or divination certainly (those are much greater sins), but God should only have to say it once. That is akin to saying that my children can disregard what I say if I only say it once, but should obey me if I repeat myself. As we say to them, "obey the first time you're told with a happy heart" :-)

    ReplyDelete
  64. Aaron said:
    ---
    Just because the prohibition isn't explicity mentioned elsewhere, like harlotry or divination, doesn't mean the prohibition doesn't apply.
    ---

    This is like saying, "Just because something is stated in context X doesn't mean it doesn't apply in context Y." But that's just an argument that it is possible, not that it is acutal.

    And given the fact that the other prohibitions near this one actually are repeated in moral contexts, but this one [tattoos] strangely is not repeated elsewhere, I think it far more probable that this only applies to only the holiness separation aspect.

    Also, I find it highly unlikely that if God really cared about this He would only issue the command in one place, and that one place in the midst of ceremonial regulations.

    Aaron said:
    ---
    Does God have to repeat Himself for His directives to be taken seriously?
    ---

    No, but God does need to repeat Himself if He commands something in a ceremonial/"holiness separation" area if that command is also a moral imperative for all times and all cultures.

    Aaron said:
    ---
    That is akin to saying that my children can disregard what I say if I only say it once, but should obey me if I repeat myself.
    ---

    No, this is akin to you telling your children not to stay up past 8 o'clock and expecting them to obey it when they're 20 years old. The context for why the command was given has changed; as such, if you wish it to apply to your 20-year-old child, surely common sense tells you that you ought to repeat the command.

    In the same manner, we don't live in the Holy Land under an Israeli theocracy. As such, laws intended for that purpose do not automatically apply to us. God knows this. That's why He repeats His moral commands in contexts not restricted to the Holy Land.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Peter said:

    "This is like saying, "Just because something is stated in context X doesn't mean it doesn't apply in context Y." But that's just an argument that it is possible, not that it is acutal.

    And given the fact that the other prohibitions near this one actually are repeated in moral contexts, but this one [tattoos] strangely is not repeated elsewhere, I think it far more probable that this only applies to only the holiness separation aspect."

    As I stated, obviously tattoos are not as prominent in God's mind as harlotry and divination. That is why I believe it is not given special emphasis elsewhere. It doesn't revert the prohibition to nothingness. If you are comfortable with your probabilities and want to relegate this verse to the "discard" bin, you are welcome to your conclusion. I think it is probable that the prohibition is still applicable.

    Peter said:

    "Also, I find it highly unlikely that if God really cared about this He would only issue the command in one place, and that one place in the midst of ceremonial regulations."

    I rather think if something is mentioned more often, it is of GREATER importance. I don't think the issue of tattoos is a raging evil that needs to be defeated as of first importance. I'm arguing that since God said it, even if only once, it was important enough to mention. Moral imperatives are interwoven with the ceremonial regulations. You are just choosing, based on your judgment, to lump this in with "bowl-cuts", I am not.

    Peter said:

    "No, but God does need to repeat Himself if He commands something in a ceremonial/"holiness separation" area if that command is also a moral imperative for all times and all cultures"

    Did He repeat Himself with regard to the Lord's Day? Is that moral or ceremonial?

    Peter said:

    "No, this is akin to you telling your children not to stay up past 8 o'clock and expecting them to obey it when they're 20 years old. The context for why the command was given has changed; as such, if you wish it to apply to your 20-year-old child, surely common sense tells you that you ought to repeat the command."

    Surely common sense tells me that I shouldn't have to tell adults they shouldn't get tattoos. Teenagers, maybe.

    Peter said:

    "In the same manner, we don't live in the Holy Land under an Israeli theocracy. As such, laws intended for that purpose do not automatically apply to us. God knows this. That's why He repeats His moral commands in contexts not restricted to the Holy Land"

    I didn't say laws intended for the Israeli theocracy were automatically applied to us. They don't apply to us in the same way they did to the OT Jew in the Holy Land, but they do have a NT application. The prohibition of harlotry and divination are of much greater importance and those prohibitions have been repeated elsewhere in Scripture. The prohibition of cutting or tattooing your body, though a much smaller issue, is still a prohibition with moral implications, separation from the world unto God.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Aaron said:
    ---
    I didn't say laws intended for the Israeli theocracy were automatically applied to us. They don't apply to us in the same way they did to the OT Jew in the Holy Land, but they do have a NT application.
    ---

    I'm going to focus on this part because I think it's the most relevant.

    You agree that this law doesn't apply "in the same way." My question is simply: how do you know they have a NT application at all? Not all OT laws have an NT application (the most obvious example being dietary laws).

    The original law about tattoos was given in the context of the Hebrews entering the Promised Land. I'm sure we agree on this much.

    Why would this apply to us today when we are not in the Promised Land, when the Messiah has already come (so the threat of pagan religions overcoming Israel is no longer pertinent)? What purpose does it serve to continue this admonition?

    Given the facts:

    1) The original command was not addressed to us in the first place

    2) There was a radical shift at the point of the cross

    3) The popular culture of today does not view tattoos in the same manner as they did at the time of the command

    4) This command is never repeated anywhere in the moral, universal code

    then what reason do we have to say that this command applies today?

    You seem to argue that God gave the command, and once is enough. This forgets that God did not give the command to us; so why do we need to apply it to us instead of to whom God originally applied it? The onus is on you to demonstrate why we must obey a command that was not issued for us in the first place. (Analogically, I'm asking why we need to obey German traffic laws when we drive on I-25.)

    ReplyDelete
  67. Aaron,

    "As far as the cutting goes, what context *would* make it an appropriate and legitimate practice? I can't think of one. I guess you would say getting a tattoo is the only one right? Regardless, I admit the context of the prohibition is "not doing it for the dead" but do we conclude we can makes cuts for any other reason? It seems kind of absurd that this would be the intended meaning. Could the meaning rather be "you shouldn't make cuts or tattoos in your body, especially for the dead."? That appears to make more sense of the verse."

    I don't know of a context where cutting yourself would be okay. As I said, it would at least be a violation of the general equity of the 6th commandment.

    Now, giove me the same application with a tattoo.

    I'm not doing it for the reasons the pagan nations around Israel were. So, why would it be wrong. If ALL you have to go off is a verse that says that I shouldn't tattoo myself in the context that pagan nations did for religious reasons, then you don't have a case.

    "We don't apply them in the same way, but there is a NT application of them and I am more comfortable saying that tattoos are prohibited now just like they were then, for the dead or the living."

    But you've not given me a reason why. I gave a reason where cutting would be wrong even if all the intimations of Lev 19 were gone.

    "Unbelievers should be able to look at you and see a difference between you and the world, it will lend credence to your life and message."

    Like don't drink, smoke, or dance and make sure I wear a white shirt with a tie and a tag that says "Elder" on it?

    How can an unbeliever just "look" at me and say, "Golyy gee willakers, there goes one of them Christians." I mean, maybe I shouldn't listen to Joe Satriani with my windows down because people may think I'm into "the debil's music"?


    And, since my message IS NOT that one should make sure he looks all pretty on the outside, dresses in a polo and dockers, and listen's to "WOW" cd's, but rather that one needs a Savior, then I don;t see how *my* message is hurt. Perhaps *your* message is hurt, but not mine. There's bigger fish to fry. Like the heart condition of man.

    "The disposition of a Christian shouldn't be that he will press his Christian liberty as far as he can and if it bothers someone else, well that's too bad--that's their problem."

    And that's not my attitude. I'm sorry it bother's you and Jeromus. Hopefully you'll listen to reason and exegesis and change your minds. Other than that, let's remember the converse. Don't try to push your weakness on me and be Lord over my conscience.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Peter,

    You asked:

    "how do you know they have a NT application at all?"

    Are there NT applications with regard to harlotry and divination? Pagans still get tattoos, right?

    You said:

    "The original law about tattoos was given in the context of the Hebrews entering the Promised Land."

    Aren't we, the people of God, heading towards the Promised Land? That is, the heavenly Jerusalem, our eternal home?

    You asked:

    "Why would this apply to us today when we are not in the Promised Land, when the Messiah has already come (so the threat of pagan religions overcoming Israel is no longer pertinent)? What purpose does it serve to continue this admonition?"

    This applies to us today because we have the Promised Land before us, and Messiah is coming again (the threat of pagan religions overcoming the church is pertinent). The purpose of the admonition is to be separate from the world and holy unto the Lord.

    Given the facts:

    1) The original command was addressed to us in the way I have outlined before, not in the same way it was addressed to the Israelites. The Abrahamic covenant wasn't addressed to us in the first place, do we cast it over our back also?

    2) There was a radical shift at the point of the cross. Now we're compelled by the spirit of the law instead of the letter.

    3) The popular culture of today views tattoos as synonymous with rebellion, promiscuity, rugged individualism, drugs, gangs, cultic or satanic practices, etc etc. Sound pagan enough for you?

    4) This command is a minor, not a major, and not repeated anywhere else in the moral, universal code.

    Did God give the command to us that He gave Adam, "Be fruitful and multiply"? Hey, I wasn't there, it must have no NT application. God was only concerned about Adam's productivity, and we can't really quote that verse to discern God's disposition regarding procreation. Analogically, American traffic laws are addressed to us on I-25.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Paul,

    You said:

    "I'm not doing it for the reasons the pagan nations around Israel were."

    Then for what reasons are you doing it? Religious ones? A sign of your devotion to God? Does God really like tattoos except when pagans get them? You see, it's not the tattoo that's the problem, right? It all depends on what *god* you get them for.

    You said:

    "Like don't drink, smoke, or dance and make sure I wear a white shirt with a tie and a tag that says "Elder" on it?

    How can an unbeliever just "look" at me and say, "Golyy gee willakers, there goes one of them Christians." I mean, maybe I shouldn't listen to Joe Satriani with my windows down because people may think I'm into "the debil's music"?"

    Nah, I don't think like that at all. Alcohol is fine in moderation, there is an appropriate context for dance (my wife is Puerto Rican, brother). I think smoking falls under the general equity of the 6th commandment though. White shirt and tie make no difference to me. An unbeliever can't just look at you and determine you're a Christian necessarily, but it's about removing obstacles. Let's remove any perceived hinderance that is within reason.

    You said:

    "And, since my message IS NOT that one should make sure he looks all pretty on the outside, dresses in a polo and dockers, and listen's to "WOW" cd's, but rather that one needs a Savior, then I don;t see how *my* message is hurt. Perhaps *your* message is hurt, but not mine. There's bigger fish to fry. Like the heart condition of man."

    That's not my message either, external things only reflect internal things. I'm not into white-washed tombs. To hell with the outward appearance while the inside is filled with dead men's bones. The heart condition of man cannot be completely divorced from how he presents himself. Do you dress up for church? Why? Because you want to impress people? No, because you're going to meet with THE KING, and you're heart is longing to be in His special presence among His people, and He is worthy that you put on your best (note: I said YOUR best, not THE best as if God is concerned with the brand names)

    You said:

    "Don't try to push your weakness on me and be Lord over my conscience"

    Listen brother, I'm not trying to do that. Like I said, it's my opinion. I am simply proposing a plausible biblical case against them. You only answer to Christ, if anything I said is unbiblical don't sweat it. Don't get me wrong, I took up a position on a very minor topic for an apologetic discussion. Your (and Peter's)comments have been helpful.

    I apologize for where I was confrontational, but it was brotherly all the same on my part.

    --AM

    ReplyDelete
  70. Aaron,

    "Like I said, it's my opinion. I am simply proposing a plausible biblical case against them."

    If it's your *opinion," then you don't have a biblcial case. Unless you meant that in your opinion you have a biblical case?

    At any rate, you're not making a biblical case any more I dealt with that. Now you're just asking why I got them. So your sense of style and asthetics is somehow more holy than mine?

    "Then for what reasons are you doing it? Religious ones? A sign of your devotion to God? Does God really like tattoos except when pagans get them? You see, it's not the tattoo that's the problem, right? It all depends on what *god* you get them for."

    Why did you get the kind of shoes you got? Why did you order this meal instead of that? Why did you get your haircut this way rather than that way? How about the "bowl cut?" Is it now sinful to get the "bowl cut?" No? Oh, I see, it's not the hair cut that's the problem, right? It all depends on what *god* you get them for.

    You may well reply, "no, that's silly. The Bible doesn't say that it's wrong to get a certain pair of shoes." (This doesn't deal with the reductio against the "bowl cut." Apparently you'd tell people not to get that.) And, look where we're at. Where does the Bible says that getting tattos in the context I have got them in (which is definitely not for the dead, or with pagan intentions, or with superstitious ideas of pleasing deities), is wrong?

    Your whole reply rests on the defeated translation of Leviticus that you're using. And, especially if the command against tattoos (which the Hebrew word means 'cut') are taken in the most natural way - not doing it for the dead - then the only command you have it that I shouldn't tattoo myself *for the dead.* But even if that's not what it means, you still have not dealt with my exegesis of the passage showing that the prohibition was nothing to do with the context of 21 century America.

    Idf you want to universalize that prohibition, then do so. You asked me to give a reason why cutting would be immoral outside of the Leviticus 29 passage. I did so. You have been asked to do the same with tattoos. Your response has simply been to take your subjective opinion of what a Christian looks like and should look like, and say that that puts a stmbling block in front of people. Of course the same can be said back to you. Maybe I live in the ghetto. People will talk to me, not to you. If you come in wearing your dockers and your your polo, they'll have images conjured up of "rich Christian who only care about white people who are racist towards, and don't understand, them." "But that's not true," say you. Okay, so it doesn't matter if people think you look a certain, that doesn't mean you are that way.

    Or, perhaps you mean that I should only try to give people my "message" who are pasty white, and don't live in the ghetto? Those stiffs who look at people with tattoos and hold their wife's hand because they think they're going to get mugged. Yeah, those people are the one's we should wittness to. Forget the dregs.

    Thus you have no biblical case, and your subjective ideas of "what looks good" is easily reverseable. Come in to the ghetto with your polo and dockers, driving your mini van, you'll put a stumbling block in front of people. they won't even want to hear your message. They'll probably want to mug you.

    And, this doesn't even have to be applied to a ghetto. Perhaps I live in a beach commuity. Probaly 90% of the people on the boardwalk are tattooed. I could freely walk up to them, while you might be viewed as a narc, or something. So, your dress and look can hinder your message to certain sets of society.

    But, even fogetting those problems, say that most people don't know that I have tattos. Say that they are all easily hidden. I look just like you, until my short came off (but then I'm either getting ready to fight, or I'm with my wife.) Hence my message isn't hindered at all.

    Basically, your entire case is shown to filled with a whole host of Mayberry assumptions. You act as if you're from Pleastantville and the very idea of someone having a tattoo is looked at as something that can destroy the adult population. Or, ever seen Footloose. "Oh my! Look at him bringing dance into our community. That's from the debil. And, ti hinders their message; people will think they're promiscuous!"

    But, where I'm from, TONS of people have tattoos. And, if you were aware of the trend, it's being done by doctors, lawyers, movie stars, professional atheletes, house wifes' and all other walks of life. it may be that pretty soon you'll be thought of as a Muslim or a Mormon or a Jehovah's Wittness. Maybe that will hinder your message.

    Well, at the end of the day, I think you should just admit that this is nothing but your opinion, based on a bad and not worked out theory of how a verse can be inapropriately applied outside of the historical context it was gievn in.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Paul,

    Didn't I already admit that this was my opinion? I'm telling you why I don't think Christians should get tattoos, I'm not saying it's a sin as such and I'm not telling you not to get them. I'm explaining how a Christian may come to a different conclusion than you about this issue, and do so based on Scripture. Hey, I'm a teachable guy. I haven't thrown your arguments in the trash can. I seriously consider what you say.

    As an aside, I'm not a pasty white preppie with dockers and polos. You're way off, and I've preached the gospel in the gutter. I grew up in a typical generation X context where music was my god and I've been around drugs, tattoos, and a lot of garbage not worth mentioning. So, I'm not from Mayberry or Pleasantville, nor am I isolated and naive. I grew up in a very pagan household. Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I appreciate it.

    -AM

    ReplyDelete
  72. Aaron said:
    ---
    Are there NT applications with regard to harlotry and divination? Pagans still get tattoos, right?
    ---

    Again, you've missed the point. The admonitions against harlotry and divination occur not only in the ceremonial law, but in the moral law too. Can you show even one command that is only in the ceremonial law that is still applicable today?

    Aaron said:
    ---
    Aren't we, the people of God, heading towards the Promised Land? That is, the heavenly Jerusalem, our eternal home?
    ---

    The original Promised Land is typological, yes; but the laws regarding it were not all typological laws. After all, it's not like we can defile the heavenly Jerusalem or make the heavenly Promised Land "full of lewdness" by our actions here.

    And of course you miss the obvious. Part of the ceremonial laws that were designed for the "holiness separation" included dietary laws and unclean foods. Yet Jesus Himself made all food clean, and Peter's vision confirmed it. Obviously, the laws regarding diet were important for the earlthy Promised Land but are NOT important for the heavenly Promised Land. Thus, there is not a 1:1 correlation between laws in the OT and NT regarding the typological Promised Land.

    Aaron said:
    ---
    This applies to us today because we have the Promised Land before us, and Messiah is coming again (the threat of pagan religions overcoming the church is pertinent).
    ---

    But the 2nd coming is not subject to the same "restrictions" as the first coming. For the first coming, it was imperative that Christ be in the line of David, of the tribe of Judah, etc. Part of the reason for the laws was to ensure the bloodline remained intact so that Messiah would be born according to prophecy. The 2nd coming has no such problems with bloodlines, etc.

    Aaron said:
    ---
    The popular culture of today views tattoos as synonymous with rebellion, promiscuity, rugged individualism, drugs, gangs, cultic or satanic practices, etc etc. Sound pagan enough for you?
    ---

    A) Yes, that would be pagan but

    B) You're wrong that that's how "popular culture" views tattoos today.

    I don't think you realize just how many people have tattoos. I think you're in somewhat of an insulated bubble where everyone you know thinks of tattoos in that way. But, like Jeromus before you, this commits the hasty generalization fallacy.

    In point of fact, of all the people that I know who have tattoos, only one of them did so for pagan reasons (but then, he is a practicing Wiccan). The vast majority of the rest of people I know with tattoos got them because "they look good" with no thought at all toward rebellion, Satanism, etc. etc. etc.

    Should I make universal statements because of my personal experience too?

    Aaron said:
    ---
    Hey, I wasn't there, it must have no NT application.
    ---

    Which of course isn't my argument.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Peter,

    You said:

    "Again, you've missed the point. The admonitions against harlotry and divination occur not only in the ceremonial law, but in the moral law too. Can you show even one command that is only in the ceremonial law that is still applicable today?"

    My assertion was that the prohibition against tattoos was moral, as well as ceremonial. That's why it applies today.

    You said:

    "The original Promised Land is typological, yes; but the laws regarding it were not all typological laws"

    I didn't say they were ALL typological laws. I'm not defending the perpetuity of the dietary laws, and I didn't say there was a 1:1 correlation between the OT and the NT regarding the typological Promised Land. It's more like 1:0.5 :-)

    You said:

    "I don't think you realize just how many people have tattoos. I think you're in somewhat of an insulated bubble where everyone you know thinks of tattoos in that way. But, like Jeromus before you, this commits the hasty generalization fallacy."

    Wrong. And unlike Jeromus, I asserted a NT application based on (in my view) a moral implication from Scripture. Jeromus argued subjectively for the most part.

    You said:

    "Should I make universal statements because of my personal experience too?"

    Nope. And I didn't either, you just disagree the prohibition has a NT application. That's fine, brother.

    -AM

    ReplyDelete
  74. Aaron,

    I think you got my point, though. I used the colorful language to express a point. I don't know anything about you, but knew enough to think you'd get the point.

    Anyway, I think this revamped verse summarizes the opposing position:

    John13:35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you don't have tattoos and wear dockers and polo shirts, occasionaly with a knitted sweater over it."

    ReplyDelete
  75. Heh, not unfunny Paul. Perhaps this actual verse summarizes the opposition,

    "I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship, and do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect." Rom. 12:1-2 ;-)

    But we both agree that God sees not as man sees, for man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart.

    I like your stuff Paul, you're good. I have profited from this interaction. May you reach many sinners for Christ in the field God has given you to labor in.

    -AM

    ReplyDelete
  76. Ditto for CalvinDude.

    Go Nordiques! Er, I mean Avalanche. Ooops, I guess I mean Go Senators!

    ReplyDelete
  77. blessing to you Aaron!

    Go Padres! And Chargers!

    ReplyDelete
  78. All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.

    As long as it's not identifiable in a culture with patterns of anti-Christian behavior, there's nothing wrong with it. Where it's debatable, I might think twice. Where I could be called into a field of foreign missions where it could be a hindrance to the gospel, it's decidedly NOT profitable for the Kingdom of God. I'll not level condemnation on any who bear tattoos or body piercings, but I won't intentionally limit my effectiveness by doing the same.

    ReplyDelete