Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
None whatsoever.
@Lambano And - likewise for the tattoos - I reckon she doesn't have any regrets either...My wife has butterfly tattoos, symbolizing resurrection.
@LambanoExcept for the one that got infected and made her ankle swell up like a balloon. That was the last tattoo.
Paul taught the Law had changed in the context of how it was to be kept, not that it ceased being the primary moral standard for Christians. Despite what you are trying to espouse, Paul didn't say the current covenant is based on a lack of law. What he said was that the current covenant is based on better promises, and it would be wise to understand the difference. He was alluding to the fact that the promises under the former covenant were purely physical and temporary. The promises of the current covenant are better because they are spiritual and eternal. The conditions of receiving either promise remain unchanged the same: keeping God's laws.@Desire Of All Nations
You are right that a tattoo is not necessary to witness. (Although given its proven effectiveness as a conversation-starter, a lot of believers do get Bible verses, etc., inked. This is also why more generally so many nurses get tattoos; they use them as an ice breaker with patients and their families.)
A bit of theology. Hebrews 4 does not say that in order for our Great High Priest to represent us in heaven, we need first to keep the law.
The law was indeed changed; and what we now have is indeed better than the law (as per Hebrews 7).
Some of what you say seems apples and oranges.Paul taught the Law had changed in the context of how it was to be kept, not that it ceased being the primary moral standard for Christians. Despite what you are trying to espouse, Paul didn't say the current covenant is based on a lack of law. What he said was that the current covenant is based on better promises, and it would be wise to understand the difference. He was alluding to the fact that the promises under the former covenant were purely physical and temporary. The promises of the current covenant are better because they are spiritual and eternal. The conditions of receiving either promise remain unchanged the same: keeping God's laws.
You are also lying by claiming no one has to keep the Law for Christ to be their High Priest. This couldn't be any further from the truth. Christ is the High Priest for truly converted Christians who are under the covenant. And in order to be brought in under the covenant and remain there, the Christian has to keep God's laws. Read Exo. 24. God made the covenant with ancient Israel upon the condition that they keep His laws. God clearly stated throughout the Law that this nation would remain His people if they kept His laws. The fact that God eventually disowned them shows why your theology is clearly false. You are speaking on matters you clearly don't understand, especially because Jesus' own words in Matt. 5:17 shows the authority of the Law has not been abolished at any time.
I don't care one bit that "believers" think tattoos are a nice icebreaker. God's stance on tattoos is just as clear as His position on is abortion, homosexuality, and witchcraft, and nobody who claims the Bible is their basis of their faith should be trying to argue against what is an unmistakable prohibition from God. God said "don't", and any arguments to willful ignore it amounts to elevating one's reasoning above God's authority.
@Lambano I guess I can see where the military is coming from; if there is contact at close quarters in a military situation, such rings can conceivably cause harm to others or injury to the wearer. Against this can be said that the military evidently expects some women to wear earrings on parade, and parade dress even specifies what size earrings they must be.Now, I know a young man who tried to get away with nipple-rings under his USAF uniform. The military is definitely not open-minded about things like that.
Sounds like the issue has quietened down for you all.Has not come up for a while
Remember when tattoos were especially associated with sailors? But I’m kinda old-school, and nipple-rings strike me as just plain weird.The military seems to have a tattoo policy which keeps changing from to time. I guess the bottom line is that if two or three conflicts are going on at the same time and recruitment is needed to avoid over-stretch, if personnel in all other respects meet the criteria, then some tattoos are probably going to be overlooked.
@Hidden In Him Well, it IS possible to go over the top with ink. (But I guess you don't find the body-building part objectionable, do you?)I actually know a girl who has gone about this far overboard with the tattoos. She's also into body-building now.![]()
PS @David in NJ Did you ever check out any portfolios in local tattoo parlors? (quite a few would Online in any case...) You can see the sheer scope for faith based tattoo designs, anyway...i appreciate and lovingly observe when colors and life are incorporated into tats.
Love me some Sola Scriptura
@Mantis People should refrain from tattoos - even faith based designs - if their conscience leads them in this way; but as regards some of the Levitical rules for Jews in the land with bushy beards, etc., it's hard to make them exactly the same as for the church, supposedly.@Jay Ross We are free in Christ. The only tattoos I will not be getting is one of remembrance of the dead as God commands. I don't think Farouk is encouraging people to sin....
@FluffyYellowDuck So did you ever check out any out of state parlors when you have travelled, maybe? or only the local ones.My parents live in separate states, far far away, but they are doing good.
@GodsGrace So did you see any more design pictures that you like...?Let me show you what I'd like...but I'll never do this....
I don't think my wife or stepson will get any more tats or piercings.@Lambano Maybe using a parlor instead of a kiosk in future would be no bad thing, in any case, right?
@Lambano So they think they got enough of both already, then?I don't think my wife or stepson will get any more tats or piercings.
My stepson's tattoos run to things like movie monsters (Godzilla!) and video game characters. One of these he designed himself, which is kind of cool.