Featured explain to me why tattoo is bad. and why Pure Spirit is better than Mystic tattoo spirit. thanks.

Tattoos are an issue of one's own self-perspective and in and of themselves, there's nothing wrong with them. The issue is whether or not one is drawn to the world and what's cool in the world, or is drawn to God and what is proper in the sight of God for them. I have no problem with tattoos whatsoever and three of my four children have one. The fourth feels that it is not right for him to have one in front of God. That is his choice and his decision and it doesn't mean that it's the right choice for everybody, but for him it is indeed the right choice.
As far as the Bible is concerned it is irrelevant.

 

Yes that is the only mention and it relates to the dead not necessarily to the tattoo itself. I like the way the NET Bible translates it;
You must not slash your body for a dead person or incise a tattoo on yourself.

I know many people who use vs 28 as a reason for not having tattoos but the problem is they ignore verse 27. So basically they're making a choice on what to obey and what not to, and in my opinion everything in the levitical law is obsolete, so there's no requirement to obey any of it.

 

The levitical laws were not directed at anybody but the children of Israel. Deut 14:1 one gives a similar command and as I've stated it has to do with focusing on the Dead because obviously shaving your forehead under normal circumstances would not be a problem. Praying for the dead was and is a normal routine in Judaism. It is also a normal tradition in the RCC and EOC. Obviously the New Testament teaches us that there's no use in praying for the Dead but having said that, Paul does make a strange statement in 1st Corinthians 15:28-30, but in any event the point is not to be focused on the dead but to be focused on the living as Jesus taught in Matthew 22:32
I'm not stating opinion as much as I am showing what the Bible clearly says.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_for_the_dead

 

Because we are entrusted with our portion of "Image and likeness of God" and it is not to be defaced with some graffiti of our own making.

 

Thus sayeth Skitnik. Are you also not going to trim your beard or sideburns?

 

So you don't believe Christian men should trim their beards or cut off their sideburns?

 

I find it extremely ironic that Christians are so quick to point out the apparent insignificance of God's laws. They usually pick one of these laws such as the one mentioned or mixing of fibers in clothing as if this must be just some arbitrary law to keep Israel separate from other nations.

Perhaps a better question would be why one would choose to obey or believe in a capricious god who comes up with arbitrary laws.

When these laws are viewed in context, it is the law itself that is spotlighting the sin. The law was never a means of separating anyone from sin. It was the standard by which one judged sin. To do away with the standard is to do away with sin altogether, but of course this is just secular humanism or moral relativism by another name. Atheists love to make the claim that there is no such thing as objective morality. Some of them seem to have had a Christian background; now we know where they got this idea from. The incredible irony is to watch a Christian condemn this philosophy in an atheist, yet condone it in the church. Following the tenets of a capricious god tends to do that to people.

 

Say you loaned me your car and while I was using it, I decided that the paint was too plain and dull and proceeded to paint graffiti all over it - do you think you'd be a bit upset when I returned it to you?

"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? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 KJV

 

this hardly seems fair to God, when we consider that we are privy to the hindsight of the failure of Law. God was not being capricious, and His Laws were not arbitrary; as you say, the Law itself was a spotlight, a manifestation, of unresolved sin. It cannot both be that and "arbitrary," can it?