Faith-based tattoo: as a result of one, did you ever talk with someone? (Poll included)

[farouk]

I agree that tattoos are a lot more mainstream.

@Prayer Warrior True comment, from back.

Did you see/vote in the poll, above?

 

[farouk]

...they both enjoy their independence and if I went along I may be too opinionated for them on which one they chose to get.

@Heart2Soul Seems anyway you already have your own strong tattoo design preferences in theory.

Thanks for your recent poll vote, BTW...

 

[Heart2Soul]

@Heart2Soul Seems anyway you already have your own strong tattoo design preferences in theory.

Thanks for your recent poll vote, BTW...

You're welcome...I do have my own ideas of what kind of tattoos a person should get. Any that represents a Christian lifestyle!

 

[farouk]

You're welcome...I do have my own ideas of what kind of tattoos a person should get. Any that represents a Christian lifestyle!

@Heart2Soul Seems like, although so many ppl get tattoos, for you the real ideal would be getting inked up specifically as a Christian woman with a truth-driven input into the design.

FYI, thought this clip would be interesting to you; one of the interviewees (from about 1.0 onward...) explains about her ink inspiration from Romans 8:

 

[michaelvpardo]

I guess we have both explained our prospective, my relationship with the Lord is of equal value. Thank for sharing. I have been studying Gods word for over 40 years now, the earlier official study was way back and it just opened my eyes to look into scripture for myself and test what I was hearing.
Who knows how the Holy Spirit may change either one of us as we journey through with the Lord, and every single Christian is on a journey. Yes, we will butt heads with things , I am sure but maybe along the way we may find common ground and agreement.
Are you in ministry in an official way outside the forum, just curious.
With regards to Matthew - have you read all the laws in the Leviticus , do you think they all apply because of Paul’s words. Jesus is talking to the crowds about ‘ these commandments ‘ present tense - and he proceeds to teach the crowds with the sermon on the mount. ‘ These commandment, the words I now speak to you ‘
If you apply it to Leviticus then it would mean every single law that the Lord spoke to Moses and gave the people at that time ,you cannot simply take some and disregard the rest if you apply it to the laws given back then. Jesus came to usher in a change, to show the people that the Pharisees were wrong in how they were teaching them.
I am not saying that Leviticus is not relevant, I believe all scripture is, Just in case you thought that. I am not a great scholar, pretty sure that you know far more than me, but like you I have to be true to what the Lord has shown me and how he has spoken to me through his word. My gifting , or as you say calling, is different.
I understand what you are saying about the feminism issue, although I do view some of Paul’s words differently to you. I believe Jesus used and called women into ministry and gave them far more value than some men have given them over the years. I have been fortunate that within my marriage I didn’t have a problem with roles - my ex just had problem with other women. Within the fellowships that I have been a part of I have always felt fulfilled in the roles I have had over the years. We have had many debates on here about the length of hair, the head coverings ect ect , so forgive me if I don’t go there.
I live in the UK but pretty sure the issues in both our countries and within the churches are the same.
I enjoyed reading your testimony, thank you once again for sharing it x

Rita


Rita x

Jesus didn't actually give any new commandments and the one Commandment that He actually did give you find in the gospel of John. Jesus was in His contemporary ministry, a teacher of the Law and His audience was almost entirely Jews under the law. He often quoted from Deuteronomy as well as from Genesis in the gospels, and what was unique about His teaching was the elements of mercy and grace. Even the beatitudes were developed directly from the books of the Law and the prophets.
When I read scripture before receiving the gospel, it almost seemed like we had two different God's in scripture. I actually wrote in an old journal that if God as portrayed in the books of the Law and Joshua was really God, I didn't want to meet Him. ( I couldn't reconcile Jesus to the One who ordered the Canaanites be put to the ban, men, women, children, even the animals). After believing the gospel and praying for His Spirit, during those years of just reading and rereading the bible, I was pretty consumed with seeing Jesus in the Old Testament because He said that they testified of Him. I came to have a different understanding of the Lord as portrayed in the Law and the prophets, but also a different perception of Jesus in the gospels. The three became one in my mind. I could also recognize the grace in the Law, despite it's harshness in the penalty for sin, because the Lord altered my perception. Now I see the law, which was ministered by angels, as a clear expression of God's holiness tempered by grace according to God's election.
The purpose of the Law was plainly described by Paul as something intended to confine Israel and by extension all humanity under sin. No one can perfectly keep the Law, sinning in just one point of the Law was effectively breaking all of it (because it was given as a covenant) and breaking it confined everyone under the curses of the Law. Paul called it a tutor teaching us (and restraining us as in an ancient function of tutors) until the arrival of Jesus and His ministry revealing God's grace to eyes unable to see it (in scripture).
I think that the new testament teaches pretty clearly that Christ fulfilled the Law and that our holiness is actually an expression of our love for one another rather than the observance of proscriptions and ritual. The early Hebrew church leaders actually placed no restrictions upon the gentile church other than that they abstain from sexual immorality and from food offered to idols.
Some pastors say that our holiness comes out of our observance of law as we purify ourselves, but I think that particular doctrinal view is in part derived from Masonic beliefs (which stress works as an expression of righteousness.) The holiness of Christians is derived from relationship, from the presence of His Spirit. Wherever God goes, He sanctifies by His presence (as in the burning Bush passage and the Holy ground. The ground was just rock and earth, but it was made Holy by His presence.)
The sanctifying presence of the Holy Spirit within us evolves our thinking with His word, convicting us of sin and modifying our behavior in repentance. It's entirely His work, but that element of our old nature frequently referred to as the flesh, coexists with our new nature and in direct conflict to it. We have choice with respect to our works, to do good or evil, but as heirs of God, children of adoption, He uses discipline to correct our error, our willfulness, our rebellious nature.
I realize many people have a problem with the notion of "once saved, always saved" as this has been used as a justification for sin, but the reality is that in receiving His Spirit as a seal of ownership, a proof of relationship, God takes on the commitment to sanctify us and complete us.
All this having been said, doing something like getting a tattoo isn't sin, but if the expression of our liberty in Christ causes someone with a simpler understanding, a legalistic one for example, to sin, then our choice could be called unloving and a failure to keep that one Commandment which is the same as the old one, to love one another. Love does no evil to a brother and satisfies all the Law. We have to be careful in our choices for the sake of love, not for fear of condemnation. Oddly enough, with regard to our choices, our conscience is supposed to be our guide. Defilement of our conscience is effectively acting without faith.

 

[farouk]

Jesus didn't actually give any new commandments and the one Commandment that He actually did give you find in the gospel of John. Jesus was in His contemporary ministry, a teacher of the Law and His audience was almost entirely Jews under the law. He often quoted from Deuteronomy as well as from Genesis in the gospels, and what was unique about His teaching was the elements of mercy and grace. Even the beatitudes were developed directly from the books of the Law and the prophets. When I read scripture before receiving the gospel, it almost seemed like we had two different God's in scripture. I actually wrote in an old journal that if God as portrayed in the books of the Law and Joshua was really God, I didn't want to meet Him. ( I could reconcile Jesus to the One who ordered the Canaanites be put to the ban, men, women, children, even the animals). After believing the gospel and praying for His Spirit, during those years of just reading and rereading the bible, I was pretty consumed with seeing Jesus in the Old Testament because He said that they testified of Him. I came to have a different understanding of the Lord as portrayed in the Law and the prophets, but also a different perception of Jesus in the gospels. The three became one in my mind. I could also recognize the grace in the Law, despite it's harshness in the penalty for sin, because the Lord altered my perception. Now I see the law, which was ministered by angels, as a clear expression of God's holiness tempered by grace according to God's election.
The purpose of the Law was plainly described by Paul as something intended to confine Israel and by extension all humanity under sin. No one can perfectly keep the Law, sinning in just one point of the Law was effectively breaking all of it (because it was given as a covenant) and breaking it confined everyone under the curses of the Law. Paul called it a tutor teaching us (and restraining us as in an ancient function of tutors) until the arrival of Jesus and His ministry revealing God's grace to eyes unable to see it (in scripture).
I think that the new testament teaches pretty clearly that Christ fulfilled the Law and that our holiness is actually an expression of our love for one another rather than the observance of proscriptions and ritual. The early Hebrew church leaders actually placed no restrictions upon the gentile church other than that they abstain from sexual immorality and from food offered to idols.
Some pastors say that our holiness comes out of our observance of law as we purify ourselves, but I think that particular doctrinal view is in part derived from Masonic beliefs (which stress works as an expression of righteousness.) The holiness of Christians is derived from relationship, from the presence of His Spirit. Wherever God goes, He sanctifies by His presence (as in the burning Bush passage and the Holy ground. The ground was just rock and earth, but it was made Holy by His presence.)
The sanctifying presence of the Holy Spirit within us evolves our thinking with His word, convicting us of sin and modifying our behavior in repentance. It's entirely His work, but that element of our old nature frequently referred to as the flesh, coexists with our new nature and in direct conflict to it. We have choice with respect to our works, to do good or evil, but as heirs of God, children of adoption, He uses discipline to correct our error, our willfulness, our rebellious nature.
I realize many people have a problem with the notion of "once saved, always saved" as this has been used as a justification for sin, but the reality is that in receiving His Spirit as a seal of ownership, a proof of relationship, God takes on the commitment to sanctify us and complete us.
All this having been said, doing something like getting a tattoo isn't sin, but if the expression of our liberty in Christ causes someone with a simpler understanding, a legalistic one for example, to sin, then our choice could be called unloving and a failure to keep that one Commandment which is the same as the old one, to love one another. Love does no evil to a brother and satisfies all the Law. We have to be careful in our choices for the sake of love, not for fear of condemnation. Oddly enough, with regard to our choices, our conscience is supposed to be our guide. Defilement of our conscience is effectively acting without faith.

Interesting that according to Hebrews 7.12 the law was changed.

According to Hebrews 7.19 what we now have is better than the law.

This is why I find it hard if for example a young Christian trying hard to witness for the Lord - as a personal resolution - through a Bible themed tattoo is hit upon by someone using the law.

 

[farouk]

@michaelvpardo I think you said Mrs. Pardo had tattoos, right?

 

[michaelvpardo]

Interesting that according to Hebrews 7.12 the law was changed.

According to Hebrews 7.19 what we now have is better than the law.

This is why I find it hard if for example a young Christian trying hard to witness for the Lord - as a personal resolution - through a Bible themed tattoo is hit upon by someone using the law.

you didn't comprehend my posts.

 

[farouk]

you didn't comprehend my posts.

@michaelvpardo I guess my post was my parallel observation, anyway...

 

[michaelvpardo]

@michaelvpardo I think you said Mrs. Pardo had tattoos, right?

Yup, I said it in at least 2 posts here, but I didn't say that she got them after receiving the gospel (she actually had them when I met her) and the additional one that she got without consulting me was an act of willful rebellion to me, not to God, but a cause of conflict and deeper division between us. No submission in that act, none.

 

[farouk]

Yup, I said it in at least 2 posts here, but I didn't say that she got them after receiving the gospel (she actually had them when I met het) and the additional one that that she got without consulting me was an act of willful rebellion to me, not to God, but a cause of conflict and deeper division between us. No, submission in that act, none.

@michaelvpardo Well, there is a sense in which by God's grace a lot of Christian husbands might overlook a wife's tattoos even if they didn't like them...

(I can't hope to be involved in your household, mind you...)

 

[michaelvpardo]

@michaelvpardo Well, there is a sense in which by God's grace a lot of Christian husbands might overlook a wife's tattoos even if they didn't like them...

(I can't hope to be involved in your household, mind you...)

You consistently miss the point. Our minds tend to justify our behavior, but we aren't the standard of righteousness, nor are our feelings. Jesus Christ is the standard of God, the image we are to be renewed in, and scripture is the standard by which we measure up to Him. We can speculate on people's thoughts, imagine their reasoning, but such things have no weight with God. The bible makes the statement that the scripture can not be broken. It's not referring to what we do with it, but to the consistent character of God, the fact that He does not lie, His immutability. The scripture can not be broken because God inspired it and God does not lie. Our understanding varies from person to person, and changes over time. God doesn't change.

 

[farouk]

You consistently miss the point. Our minds tend to justify our behavior, but we aren't the standard of righteousness, nor are our feelings. Jesus Christ is the standard of God, the image we are to be renewed in, and scripture is the standard by which we measure up to Him. We can speculate on people's thoughts, imagine their reasoning, but such things have no weight with God, but His word does. The bible makes the statement that the scripture can not be broken. It's not referring to what we do with it, but to the consistent character of God, the fact that He does not lie, His immutability. The scripture can not be broken because God inspired it and God does not lie. Our understanding varies from person to person, and changes over time. God doesn't change.

@michaelvpardo I don't see however what this has to do with the possible challenge of being patient if one doesn't happen to like one's wife's tattoos (which, after all, is what so many women are likely to have in any case).

But I can't expect to figure the privacy of your personal relationship, anyway.

 

[michaelvpardo]

@michaelvpardo I don't see however what this has to do with the possible challenge of being patient if one doesn't happen to like one's wife's tattoos (which, after all, is what so many women are likely to have in any case).

But I can't expect to figure the privacy of your personal relationship, anyway.

Ever ask yourself why Eve was deceived by the serpent, but Adam sinned knowingly?

 

[farouk]

Ever ask yourself why Eve was deceived by the serpent, but Adam sinned knowingly?

@michaelvpardo These are significant theological questions, indeed, but I was simply wondering about the idea of showing a bit of patience over a wife's tattoos (after all, they are what so many wives these days are likely to have in any case).

But what do I know?

 

[farouk]

Thanks to all who voted so far in the poll!

NB: If you have not yet voted in the poll, please vote now!

 

[farouk]

michaelvpardo: PS: After all, we are talking about the developed personal psychology of women as citizens who can vote, can choose their haircut, etc.; whether or not to get a bit of ink is usually a decision she would be deemed capable of making for herself, too.

 

[Rita]

@michaelvpardo - Good morning ( well it is here ) I have to shoot to work in a short time. Thank you for your earlier post. I found it fascinating when I started to see Jesus in the OT, in a deeper way. Not sure I am seeing him in some of it yet though - still waver with the parts where whole nations were destroyed in such callous ways, but deep down I know there were reasons. I have been reading about Saul over the last few days. Would love to know how you see Jesus in those harsh passages - what you have learned from them.
You make some really valid points, which I will mull over, although I do see so much more to Jesus in the beattitudes.
You didn’t address the issue of all the laws in Leviticus , or the fact that we cut skin for many reasons, not endeavouring to justify anything but I would like to understand why those who do not take culture into account align to not fulfilling all that was required by the Israelites. I am not talking about the sacrificial laws because we know that Jesus fulfilled those. There were no many laws laid down for the people - if they were not cultural, and if they are as relevant to Gods people today, why are they left in the OT and not adhered to.
How do you apply them. Honestly I would like to know your views.
I totally get about leading others down the wrong path, it’s a shame that many on this forum ( not you ) do not consider that within the context of responding to one another - many people read the posts. Wonder what stumbling blocks many have put in their way with their rudeness and ‘ lack of love ‘ for their fellow brother and sister. It’s perhaps something we should all consider. It’s a good and valid point x

Right the clock is ticking ... need to catch my bus x
Rita

 

[farouk]

@michaelvpardo - Good morning ( well it is here ) I have to shoot to work in a short time. Thank you for your earlier post. I found it fascinating when I started to see Jesus in the OT, in a deeper way. Not sure I am seeing him in some of it yet though - still waver with the parts where whole nations were destroyed in such callous ways, but deep down I know there were reasons. I have been reading about Saul over the last few days. Would love to know how you see Jesus in those harsh passages - what you have learned from them.
You make some really valid points, which I will mull over, although I do see so much more to Jesus in the beattitudes.
You didn’t address the issue of all the laws in Leviticus , or the fact that we cut skin for many reasons, not endeavouring to justify anything but I would like to understand why those who do not take culture into account align to not fulfilling all that was required by the Israelites. I am not talking about the sacrificial laws because we know that Jesus fulfilled those. There were no many laws laid down for the people - if they were not cultural, and if they are as relevant to Gods people today, why are they left in the OT and not adhered to.
How do you apply them. Honestly I would like to know your views.
I totally get about leading others down the wrong path, it’s a shame that many on this forum ( not you ) do not consider that within the context of responding to one another - many people read the posts. Wonder what stumbling blocks many have put in their way with their rudeness and ‘ lack of love ‘ for their fellow brother and sister. It’s perhaps something we should all consider. It’s a good and valid point x

Right the clock is ticking ... need to catch my bus x
Rita

@Rita Another searching and thoughtful post from you. Yes, what you say about Leviticus does indeed pose relevant questions. I guess I would add that as a lady you won't have had to address personally the matter of the bushy beads that Old Testament Jews were seemingly expected to wear! and as regards beards in Leviticus how this supposedly applies now is a logical question. Yes, a tattooed lady; you'll not have had to face beard issues directly! Your post is very relevant and thoughtful.

 

[farouk]

@Rita

I hear you on that one. When I can I also avoid them.

@amadeus A well known journalist once said: "Comment is free; facts are sacred". I guess there is a world of a difference in there...