Ok Let's Talk About It...pierced Ears And Tattoos?

[Stan]

So if Jesus is not doing the "knitting" then who is? Col 1:16
And to make your answers more credible how about backing up what you say with Scripture.

No problem, The WORD created everything as Col 1:16 states, along with John 1:3-4.
Remember, He RESTED from creation in Gen 2:3. Life is on auto pilot now as God designed it. The word used conveys the intricacy of conception and gestation. God doesn't sit there and KNIT or WEAVE every life. The metaphorical nature of these verses is clear. NOT everything in the Bible is literal.
What exactly did I say that is NOT credible to you?

Inspired by the Holy Spirit. so don't you think He knew what He was directing David to write?

Was He? David was writing songs and although the totality of scripture is accepted as God inspired, is does NOT mean EVERYTHING in it IS. Paul makes that clear when he says certain things are from himself, and NOT the Lord.

Gen 5:3 tells us that Adam passed his fallen nature down to progeny.

You are reading something into this scripture that is NOT there. Gen 5 is to establish blood lines to the flood and right afterwards. Obviously the wording here again is NOT literal. Adam did not HAVE a son. Eve did. His son had his looks and mannerisms. Nothing is said about a so called 'fallen nature'. Where exactly in the OT do you find the idea of a 'fallen nature'?

First you say God is Omnipresent and then are you saying there are places He isn't?
So tell me, when did God start numbering the hairs on my head, in the womb or after my birth?

Well I guess it depends on how you look at God. If you think He HAS to be Omnipresent then you're stuck with that view. If you believe He can be and do ANYTHING He wants then there is no restriction.

"The seas have lifted up, O LORD, the seas have lifted up their voice; the seas have lifted up their pounding waves. Mightier than the thunder of the great waters, mightier than the breakers of the sea-- the LORD on high is mighty" (Psalm 93:3,4). "For I am the LORD your God, who churns up the sea so that its waves roar— the LORD Almighty is His name" (Isaiah 51:15).

God is NOT limited nor is He restricted to our concepts. He may be Omnipresent always, but that does NOT mean He is always acting or doing something. He Himself says "Be STILL and know that I am God."



God never STARTED numbering the hairs on your head. This is a confirmation of Divine Providence. God just KNOWS how many hairs you have at any time. The issue in Luke 12:7 is about TRUSTING in God's Providence.
Do you think God decrees who has a lot of hair or who goes bald? It is genetics, which He created and set into motion at creation. The comprehension of 2000 year old society even knew that.

 

[Stan]

Umm...isn't this thread specifically about tattoos and piercings?

(Just wondered.)

Blessings.

Sorry Farouk...I get easily sucked in.

 

[farouk]

Sorry Farouk...I get easily sucked in.

No prob.; I think it just proves that the discussion can occur at various levels.

Blessings.

 

[Stan]

I do not find piercings or tattoos necessary for any type of Christian witness. Honestly, to make such a claim is a HUGE stretch. Yes, they can be tools, but overall, I think that if all of Christianity had remained unified behind a "clean" appearance, our message to the world would be a lot less confusing. Most of the hypocrisy that people like to point to when attacking Christians comes from the fact that some speak against such practices while others openly do them. It's not true hypocrisy, but we lack unity to a level that I've never encountered with any other group or religion. For this same reason, I also feel that it would be better if all Christians denied alcohol (without trying to force the entire world to ban it). It sends a confusing message when so many are so heavily against it, but then others aren't. At the same time, permitting alcohol would have the same effect, but would be harder to support because of the lives it has destroyed.

However, once again, there has to be a line. We can make the claim that any activity that isn't worthy of Christ is therefore to be avoided. Take that to the extreme and suddenly you have to go live in a cave somewhere. One way or another, there is a line. So where is that line? Is it with piercings? Is it with Television? Is it with buying food from a grocery story that hired teens that might be using that money to buy drugs? It is with using the Internet that continuously has been the number one purveyor of porn since the first few servers went live?

The way I see it, there are few activities that we can do that can be completely sanctified. We are told to be in the world, but not of the world. I've seen that interpreted to mean so many things, I think I've lost track of what I originally thought when I heard it. I do not have the slightest problem with anyone who is convicted to avoid piercing, or eating meat, or any other activity in which humans can participate. The problem always comes when we try to force our convictions on others. It simply doesn't work. We are literally fighting against the Holy Spirit. We are saying that we don't trust the Holy Spirit, because if we did, we wouldn't have to be so emotional about it. We can easily state our views without being emotional, but the frustration bleeds through as a person who doesn't even understand their own convictions. Again, I don't mind not always understanding my own convictions. I'm not greater than the Holy Spirit who is charged with revealing sin, I do not have to understand, only obey. I only ask that nobody else try to be the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit reveals sin, and we try to call out slivers in the eyes of others, then are we not acting as the Holy Spirit? Would that not be Blasphemy? Walk softly always so as not to offend the little ones in Christ as you may actually be the thorns that strangle their seeds.

Agreed and we must always keep in mind what Paul teaches in Romans 14. Hopefully none here are that weak or new in their faith that I have caused them to sin against themselves by doubting God. My faith supports what I believe and I am ready to defend it as such, but ONLY if it does NOT cause others to sin.

 

[farouk]

Stan:

Yes, I agree. But then of course we don't have to go around all the time apologizing to everyone — Jimmy Carter-style — in case, just in case someone someplace might be offended...

Romans 14 is a great framework for Christian liberty.

Blessings.

 

[Stan]

Wild music, opposite sex clothing and haircuts cannot be compared due to the permanence / tainting and scarring nature of tattoos and piercings.

Our body is the temple of God. If you were a Jewish high priest, would you graffiti the holy grail? We can fix the holy grail. We can dress it with fine cloth. We can dust and varnish it. But dare we graffiti it. Did God really need to tell the high priests not to do that?

History shows us that tattoos and piercings were rife amongst pagan tribes and amongst the rebellious individuals of the last century. I don't picture an elder at any traditional church giving his approval.

I will accept that in these days it is certainly possible to get tattoos and piercings with no ill intentions to God. But I firmly believe that as we mature and respect God and our body more, we should stop. The world clearly does it for intimadation, insecurity, pride, vanity, pagan culture and rebellion against God and how He made us. If we say our motivation is different, then what of the blur we create knowing the 'worlds' motivation?

They can if you look at them in the same light. God doesn't look at sin in degrees except for Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Who is to say HOW a temple is decorated. The RCC has endured years of negative comments about how much money they put into their buildings. When I was first saved many Christians were biased about how some dressed.

History also shows how so-called Christian missionaries abused the people they went to witness the gospel to and made them adopt the "white man's" way of being a Christian. I'm sure nobody here agrees with how that failed miserably.

After I was first married, some 32 years ago, I worked in an office with about 10 people. None were Christian but me. A few months ago I received a Facebook message from a chap I used to work with there. I apologized for not remembering him.
He said he looked me up to let me know he was now a pastor at one of the largest French Churches in Montreal. He said my walk attracted him to Christ. Now understand I dressed and looked like everyone else, but this man was attracted to what was IN me, NOT by my outward appearance.

This is what we need to concentrate on, NOT legalities. Paul addresses this in Gal 5 regarding circumcision and in Eph 6 he confirms commandments but makes it very clear that living by the written law makes one subject to it.

 

[farouk]

They can if you look at them in the same light. God doesn't look at sin in degrees except for Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Who is to say HOW a temple is decorated. The RCC has endured years of negative comments about how much money they put into their buildings. When I was first saved many Christians were biased about how some dressed.

History also shows how so-called Christian missionaries abused the people they went to witness the gospel to and made them adopt the "white man's" way of being a Christian. I'm sure nobody here agrees with how that failed miserably.

After I was first married, some 32 years ago, I worked in an office with about 10 people. None were Christian but me. A few months ago I received a Facebook message from a chap I used to work with there. I apologized for not remembering him.
He said he looked me up to let me know he was now a pastor at one of the largest French Churches in Montreal. He said my walk attracted him to Christ. Now understand I dressed and looked like everyone else, but this man was attracted to what was IN me, NOT by my outward appearance.

This is what we need to concentrate on, NOT legalities. Paul addresses this in Gal 5 regarding circumcision and in Eph 6 he confirms commandments but makes it very clear that living by the written law makes one subject to it.

Stan:

You must have received some unexpected encouragement, after all those years...

Yes, I've thought that tattooing is in some ways a bit like circumcision. Neither should be compulsory under the new economy of the Gospel of the grace of God. There are various arguments both against and in favor of both. I guess one can say that as well as not being compulsory, they should not be prohibited, either. Paul circumcised Timothy, of course, so that he could use it as a way of gaining a hearing among Jews, not because it was necessary.

There are all sorts of tattoos and there are various sorts of circumcision, of course, medical, etc. for which there are various arguments.

Blessings.

 

[farouk]

I do not have the slightest problem with anyone who is convicted to avoid piercing, or eating meat, or any other activity in which humans can participate. The problem always comes when we try to force our convictions on others. It simply doesn't work.

Banarenth:

Some good thoughts above, from where I've taken the quotation.

For example, take two 55-year old Christian women, both of them spiritually minded and with clear, personal testimonies.

One may be a preacher's daughter married to a farmer, and has attended a rural baptist church all her life.

The other may be a city dweller, with a profound, 40 year familiarity with rock and roll music and attends a weekly home Bible study.

It's possible that they will both have a similar appearance, but equally possible that they will not. And if not, one can't reasonably expect the city dwelling 55 year old woman to start trying to look like the farmer's wife. While the farmer's wife may honestly prefer e.g., to limit her earrings to one or two per ear, the city dweller can't be expected necessarily to follow suit. The same with the city dweller being supposedly expected always to cover tattoos, etc.

Like you say, one can't expect to force one's convictions on another person; these are likely to differ from individual believer to another and this does not relate to whether the person is a faithful, spiritually-minded servant of the Lord.

(I feel kind of strongly about this, really.)

Blessings.

 

[christianvolume]

Wow, this discussion grew fast and I feel under qualified to respond anymore to most of these. However, I am still here and reading through them .... At least it has been fairly civil, so props!

 

[farouk]

Wow, this discussion grew fast and I feel under qualified to respond anymore to most of these. However, I am still here and reading through them .... At least it has been fairly civil, so props!

christianvolume: Hi there; well, everyone has an opinion or a personal taste, I'm sure (including you!) Blessings.

 

[JustPassingThru]

What exactly did I say that is NOT credible to you?

Well, let's just start with this:

Life is on auto pilot now as God designed it.

I was taught to be a Berean Acts 17:11, so please give us a verse or verses to substantiate you claim.

And,

Remember, He RESTED from creation in Gen 2:3

So you are basing your beliefs on the word "created" which in the Hebrew is baw-raw' which means to create out of nothingness, that is, God speaking His thoughts into existence and He stopped "creating" on the seventh day, then how do you explain God CREATING a help mate for Adam after that? Gen 2:18 Was that AUTO PILOT that caused Adam to sleep, remove a rib and then fashion it into a woman?

I'm sorry I have to do this, and I'm saying this in love, I'm not judging you, but rather what you have said by the Word of God, John 7:24, but for the sake of those who are new in the faith or untaught in the Word I have to expose this false teaching.

Although there are thousands of references in the Bible to God's daily intervention in the lives of all people, saved and unsaved, let's focus on a story everyone is familiar with, that is Jonah,

God speaks to Jonah 1:1,2
God makes a large fish to swallow Jonah, 1:17
God keeps Jonah alive for three days and three nights in the belly of the whale 1: 17
Jonah prays to God and acknowledges that He(it's) is the one responsible for his predicament 2:1-9
God speaks to the fish and the fish vomits Jonah out on the shore 2:10
God speaks to Jonah the second time 3:1
God speaks to Jonah the third time 4:4
God makes a gourd to shade Jonah 4:6
God makes a worm to eat the gourd 4:7
God speaks to Jonah the last time 4:10,11

Now, let's do a simple test, replace the word God with AUTO PILOT, which one flies (sorry, couldn't resist the pun) which one makes the most sense, more important, which one is of the New Covenant where the Holly Spirit testifies to our spirits which one is from Him and which one isn't?

Matt 24:4

Gene

 

[Stan]

Well, let's just start with this:
I was taught to be a Berean Acts 17:11, so please give us a verse or verses to substantiate you claim.

Well I'm a Christian and ONLY follow Jesus. I do like the tact that the OPEN MINDED Jews took in Acts 17:11, by examining the OT to ensure what Paul and Silas were preaching was accurate and I agree that is what we should also do today.
So you think that God's creation is NOT on auto pilot, or running as He intended? You don't believe that life is self perpetuating because you have not seen scripture that tells you this, despite evidence in plain sight?
What about Gen 1:22, 24, & 28?

So you are basing your beliefs on the word "created" which in the Hebrew is baw-raw' which means to create out of nothingness, that is, God speaking His thoughts into existence and He stopped "creating" on the seventh day, then how do you explain God CREATING a help mate for Adam after that? Gen 2:18 Was that AUTO PILOT that caused Adam to sleep, remove a rib and then fashion it into a woman?

I see you have only been here since April of this year so you may not have read my post on Genesis. You're welcome to read it and comment there. http://www.christianforumsite.com/threads/genesis-clues.33052/
Bottom line here is that Gen 2:18 goes into detail of what God did in Gen 1:27. It is NOT in chronological order, as shown by the word NOW used in Gen 2:5. It repeats the foregoing scripture IN detail.

I'm sorry I have to do this, and I'm saying this in love, I'm not judging you, but rather what you have said by the Word of God, John 7:24, but for the sake of those who are new in the faith or untaught in the Word I have to expose this false teaching.
Although there are thousands of references in the Bible to God's daily intervention in the lives of all people, saved and unsaved, let's focus on a story everyone is familiar with, that is Jonah,
God speaks to Jonah 1:1,2
God makes a large fish to swallow Jonah, 1:17
God keeps Jonah alive for three days and three nights in the belly of the whale 1: 17
Jonah prays to God and acknowledges that He(it's) is the one responsible for his predicament 2:1-9
God speaks to the fish and the fish vomits Jonah out on the shore 2:10
God speaks to Jonah the second time 3:1
God speaks to Jonah the third time 4:4
God makes a gourd to shade Jonah 4:6
God makes a worm to eat the gourd 4:7
God speaks to Jonah the last time 4:10,11
Now, let's do a simple test, replace the word God with AUTO PILOT, which one flies (sorry, couldn't resist the pun) which one makes the most sense, more important, which one is of the New Covenant where the Holly Spirit testifies to our spirits which one is from Him and which one isn't?
Matt 24:4
Gene

Well so far you have not shown anything that substantiates either your original claims or that mine are false teachings.
That God continues to interact with us on a regular daily basis does NOT mean He interacts with everything He created on a daily basis. I know that the Holy Spirit keeps the principalities and powers of darkness at bay and eventually as depicted in Revelation, the Holy Spirit will leave this world to allow for the Great Tribulation.
God speaks to me as well, NOT on a daily basis but almost daily. In some instances He has worked in my life and spared me from death, but He has also left me to my own devices to learn how to be submissive to Him. This is because I ask Him to in Jesus' name. It is because I accepted His provision, Jesus, as my savior.
Your attempt above to prove your point fails in that I did NOT call God an Auto Pilot. I said for the most part His creation is on auto pilot and gave you some scripture above to show that. I am a tad dismayed that I indeed had to do so, given the obvious nature of nature. ( I kinda like alliteration )
I'm not really getting your last question. The Holy Spirit came for the exact reasons Jesus gave in John 14:26

 

[farouk]

That seems like something more for the newer generations.

Banarenth:

Well, it's gotten to be quite a rite of passage for many young men and women at 18, these days, anyway.

Some Christians among them might think they wanted their design to represent something useful rather than relatively empty...

Blessings.

 

[JustPassingThru]

So you are basing your beliefs on the word "created" which in the Hebrew is baw-raw' which means to create out of nothingness, that is, God speaking His thoughts into existence and He stopped "creating" on the seventh day, then how do you explain God CREATING a help mate for Adam after that? Gen 2:18 Was that AUTO PILOT that caused Adam to sleep, remove a rib and then fashion it into a woman?

You say you've commented on the book of Genesis, but you don't know the difference (I gave you a hint) between baw-raw' used in Ge 2:3 and aw-saw' used in Ge 2:18 which is another Hebrew word to "create" that is used in the Old Testament which means to make from materials already created, hence Eve wasn't baw-raw' created, she was as-saw' created from Adam's rib, ...in the story of Jonah it says God as-saw' a great fish, a gourd and a worm, the reason I chose Jonah was to give proof positive from Scripture that God is still active on this planet and still creating after Ge 2:3, correctly dividing the Word of God 2 Tim 2:15, ...contrary to your Deistic autopilot opinion.

Matt 24:4

Gene

 

[farouk]

Is this something to do with tattoos and piercings?

 

[Stan]

You say you've commented on the book of Genesis, but you don't know the difference (I gave you a hint) between baw-raw' used in Ge 2:3 and aw-saw' used in Ge 2:18 which is another Hebrew word to "create" that is used in the Old Testament which means to make from materials already created, hence Eve wasn't baw-raw' created, she was as-saw' created from Adam's rib, ...in the story of Jonah it says God as-saw' a great fish, a gourd and a worm, the reason I chose Jonah was to give proof positive from Scripture that God is still active on this planet and still creating after Ge 2:3, correctly dividing the Word of God 2 Tim 2:15, ...contrary to your Deistic autopilot opinion.

Matt 24:4

Gene

As I said, respond to my post there...you are hijacking this thread.

 

[farouk]

I guess the thread is about piercings and tattoos, which - I reckon - isn't exactly rocket science...

Blessings.

 

[farouk]

Banarenth:

Some good thoughts above, from where I've taken the quotation.

For example, take two 55-year old Christian women, both of them spiritually minded and with clear, personal testimonies.

One may be a preacher's daughter married to a farmer, and has attended a rural baptist church all her life.

The other may be a city dweller, with a profound, 40 year familiarity with rock and roll music and attends a weekly home Bible study.

It's possible that they will both have a similar appearance, but equally possible that they will not. And if not, one can't reasonably expect the city dwelling 55 year old woman to start trying to look like the farmer's wife. While the farmer's wife may honestly prefer e.g., to limit her earrings to one or two per ear, the city dweller can't be expected necessarily to follow suit. The same with the city dweller being supposedly expected always to cover tattoos, etc.

Like you say, one can't expect to force one's convictions on another person; these are likely to differ from individual believer to another and this does not relate to whether the person is a faithful, spiritually-minded servant of the Lord.

(I feel kind of strongly about this, really.)

Blessings.

PS: In the example given, I was talking hypothetically but I think it is quite plausible as a situation, really.

Blessings.

 

[Panda]

I do think that it's a plausible situation, but I would also note that if the city dweller with the tattoos were to visit the rural church, they would be advised to cover her tattoos in respect rather than make it a point of pride to fight for her "right" to display them. She may not be wrong to have them, or even show them, but I would place it on the same level that Paul talked about with regards to eating unclean animals in the presence of those that considered such practice to be sin.

 

[farouk]

I do think that it's a plausible situation, but I would also note that if the city dweller with the tattoos were to visit the rural church, they would be advised to cover her tattoos in respect rather than make it a point of pride to fight for her "right" to display them. She may not be wrong to have them, or even show them, but I would place it on the same level that Paul talked about with regards to eating unclean animals in the presence of those that considered such practice to be sin.

Yes, good point also. It's good not to cause offence somehow, if the person thinks s/he might. Like you say, it might in some circumstances be a good idea to cover them; not a matter of right or wrong, but sensible and respectful, maybe.

The converse is true also; if the 55-year old lady from a rural Baptist church were to go to a city where a contemporary of hers was in a church with short sleeves with some of her ink visible, then she wouldn't necessarily expect her own notions to apply to the city dwellers'.

Blessings.