So forgive the long winded texan, He is at it again:
Today, I made a blunder, when I clicked the Live Chat button.
When I entered the chatroom, what looked like a fight between a guy (name withheld) and a woman(same deal)
She set a very high bar that eliminated a huge percentange of the human male group. And she presented herself in a way that looked no different then a religious legalist.
And the guy started responding to her by listing aspects (what seemed to be from her profile) of who he wouldn't date. She took great offense and said he was insulting her.
Later the guy said lets move on, and apologized. She never acknowledged the apology.
But one thing she said, I had to comment on. She said she would never date a guy with tattoos, and I asked why... She never answered, and someone said that the bible says we shouldn't have tattoos.
To that person, I asked:
"where does the bible specifically state that no one should ever have tattoos other then Leviticus 19:28?"
(which in light of Acts Chapter 15, specifically 15:29, says what part of the mosaic law that US gentiles who follow Jesus are required to keep, exempting us from the Law of Leviticus 19:28)
They never gave a biblical answer. Now yes, we are the temple of the holy spirit, and yes, light has no fellowship with darkness.
But what about having scripture tattoo'd or where it says that God has carved the names of his people on his palms? Can the practice of tattooing be used to the glory of God with thanksgiving?
Also, the other point I raised in live chat was: What if the tattoos a person has are from their prechistian life? Is there no grace for them, but a shunning and excluding from ones list.
Where is the grace in that? If God has forgiven him or her, shouldn't he or she get a second amongst God's people?
Yes, I agree standards are good, and profitable.. but up to a certain point.. then they become a form of rejecting people shortsightedly at the cost of one's own potential gain.
Where do you fellow men stand on Tattoos and other past prechristian choices, with regard to future spouses and is there grace for the future mate?
Would someone's future husband or wife qualify as their neighbor? And doesn't scripture clearly state that our bodies are not our own? But that they also belong to whomever we marry?
Making such a permanent decision apart from one's future husband or wife could be a sign of someone's insensitivity and selfishness - have they been thoughtfully preparing themselves for another or have they been living unto self...
Tattoos previous to one's renewed life in Christ?
Though not seen outwardly, the Apostle Paul must have been absolutely covered with the inward tattoos (scars) of having persecuted the church - murder, pride and so on. Would someone have missed out on an incredible relationship with God by rejecting Paul as a potential spouse? Absolutely.
There is no end to the sin / emotional scars people are willing to accept in others as long as it isn't "noticeable".
Rachel, the Laws of the OT fall under two categories. 1) Those that were of the Character of God, and 2) those that were for His children at the time to follow to seperate them from the world, which would include the ceremonies
For us, we are allowed to get tattoo's because thats not a scripture that is linked to God's character. You can tell by comparing and contrasting to the NT. God's commands are all about living right, not whats on your body. And besides, if the tattoo glorifies God, it's all the better.
dreamtime, While it is wise to think of a future spouse and what they want, getting a tattoo for yourself isn't hurting them. You're not yet married, and your body does not yet belong to them. Now if you were married and went against a spouses will, that would be a different story.
While I would love to agree with you, I don't think I could, the law in Leviticus sounded pretty serious.
"Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I [am] the LORD" He stated at the end there "I AM THE LORD".
And God's character happens to be all about preparation, he's preparing a place for his bride, his people. He's prepared everything in our lives, he knew what would happen before it's happened. Yes, until we get married our body doesn't belong to our spouse, but think of it, it's sort of like saying "I'm going to get a tattoo, I really don't care what people thing of it, or if it's unattractive to a girl, I'll get someone who loves me for my tattoos and everything."
It's a little selfish, really. If the tattoo means so much to you, why not wait until you've considered someone for a spouse and ask them about it?
Most people don't want to be told what to do with their own bodies, but our bodies do not belong to us. They are God's, he created them, he created everything.
"it's sort of like saying "I'm going to get a tattoo, I really don't care what people thing of it, or if it's unattractive to a girl, I'll get someone who loves me for my tattoos and everything."
Have to disagree here.
First, the statement presumes to know the motives of those who get tatoos.
Second, "or if its unattractive to a girl" ....seems to show that your comment is based on gender bias. The tatto issue, whatever it is, knows no gender boundaries.
The only way the issue can be discussed objectively is in terms of whether Levitical law applies to gentiles, and then, if so, whether it applies to gentile believers post-resurrection.
Discussion of it on any other terms is really an exercise in futility, just opinions, judging in the flesh and from from the wrong tree. We all have our preferences in life....yet all of our preferences are also flesh.
"The only way the issue can be discussed objectively is in terms of whether Levitical law applies to gentiles, and then, if so, whether it applies to gentile believers post-resurrection."
I want to ask for clarification. Post-resurrection.. you meant post-regeneration, right?
We are dead in Christ, buried in Christ, and risen in newness of life (spiritually) aka
"if any man be in Christ, his is a new creation. (some translations say "or a new creature.") "
But the physical resurrection of believers is set for a future day.
Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law. Galations 3:13
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. John 1:17
Romans 8:2 The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Romans 7:4 My brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to Him Who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
But whether we speak of it in terms of post-resurrection or post-regeneration, the bottom line is still the same.
In other words, if we discuss it as sport (post-resurrection but not post-regeneration), it is just a topic of theology.
If we discuss it post-regeneration, then we are all in process, and we have to discuss the same issues anyway,and from a point of view of hermeneutics and abiding in the spirit rather than abiding in the carnality of pseudo-spirituality.
So no matter how we cut up the pie, it still comes down to whether Levitical law, or parts of it, are still pressing on us today, regenerated or not.
Because if the law presses on the unregenerated, it also presses on the unregenerated. The only difference being that the unregenerate would be ignorant of the exigencies of God on them.
blessings and thank you for your time to comment on my post.
I just realized that posting a response to another user does not give a result of showing to whom the response was directed~!
So my previous response was directed @princeKermit. It was sort of obvious from the text of my response, but I thought to post again so it would be clear.
