Tattoos?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Phoenix_7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
xixxvmcm85,

You wrote about my last post “You state that it’s possible that Jesus was unaware that subsequent generations would at least diminish adherence to the law.” Your statement is mistaken. I asked Doctor if I’m to understand such a thing, based on HIS post. And I concluded “I don’t think so!” Because to me it is obvious that Jesus was AWARE of everything that was to happen in our society going forward and even so He said that not a letter of the law was to be changed until after heaven and earth pass away.

Btw, it was St. Peter who was authorized to eat of everything and St. Paul who resisted circumcising the Gentiles, and not the other way round, as you state.

But we must understand Peter and Paul IN THE LIGHT OF Jesus, and NOT INSTEAD OF Jesus.

Re Peter: In the same way that James Bond was given a “licence to kill”, without changing the law against homicide, I believe that Peter was given a “licence to eat”, but without changing dietary rules, which Jesus said would not be changed.

Re Paul: He was not against circumcision “per se”. He was against those who stated that it was necessary to be circumcised to obtain salvation. Of course, we all know that salvation is free to those whose names are in the Book of Life. Salvation derives from love (and not from keeping the Law).

Those who keep the law do it out of love for God and not to “purchase” salvation.
 
Frank_Mitchell said:
Doctor, am I to understand that, when Jesus said “until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5: 17, 18) He was, perhaps UNAWARE that there would come a day when there would be many parts of the Levitical law “which we can safely throw out”, as you state? I don’t think so!
Click to expand...
Hey Frank. I know for a fact that Jesus was aware of everything from the beginning of time.

At first blush, it does appear that Jesus is telling us to that to “fulfill the law” means a literal enforcement of the law in the least detail until the second coming and the end of the world (“until heaven and earth pass away”). However, if that is what Jesus is really saying, then it would mean that He is binding everyone all the time to the Mosaic law until the end of the world. But, that was never the case. Not only did Jesus Himself violate provisions of Mosaic (such as doing work on the Sabbath), but he allowed his disciples to violate the law and the Church, which was charged by Jesus with teaching the faith, has never enforced them as well (e.g. Christian men are not required to be circumcised. We are not required to offer sacrifices or travel to Jerusalem to keep the annual festivals or keep the various purification rituals). Since this is clearly not what Jesus meant, he must have been talking about something else.
Frank_Mitchell said:
The whole point of Jesus is that YES, we do have to follow every single Levitical law whilst at the same time being incapable of doing so. That’s why He hung on the cross: to pay for our incapacities… If you take away parts of the Law to make it bearable by common men then you take away the reason for the sacrifice of Jesus. I do believe that Jesus knew what He was talking about when He said “not the smallest letter”…
Click to expand...
No, respectfully my dear brother, I don’t see that. To me, the whole point of Jesus is that we have all sinned against our all loving, immortal all-powerful God and there is nothing we can do to redeem ourselves and we all should burn in Hell for eternity. That is the reason Jesus hung on the cross. Not to make up for our human inability to follow the law, but out of love so that through Him, we have the capacity to be forgiven of our sins and inherit eternal life.
 
Doctor, good afternoon!

You wrote: “At first blush, it does appear that Jesus is telling us to that to “fulfill the law” means a literal enforcement of the law in the least detail until the second coming and the end of the world (“until heaven and earth pass away”). However, if that is what Jesus is really saying, then it would mean that He is binding everyone all the time to the Mosaic law until the end of the world. But, that was never the case.”

But Jesus said: “But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken.” I call that “very binding”!!!

You wrote: “Not only did Jesus Himself violate provisions of Mosaic (such as doing work on the Sabbath), but he allowed his disciples to violate the law”

But then Jesus went and actually paid for everyone’s violations as He hung on the cross.

You wrote “the Church, which was charged by Jesus with teaching the faith, has never enforced them as well”

I think this stems from the following passage: “Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." The focus here, as presented by Peter, was to focus on preaching salvation (through love and belief in Jesus) rather than preaching the Law (which by itself does not save). It was a management decision but the apostles did not have the authority to revoke any part of the Law….

You wrote: “(e.g. Christian men are not required to be circumcised. We are not required to offer sacrifices or travel to Jerusalem to keep the annual festivals or keep the various purification rituals). Since this is clearly not what Jesus meant, he must have been talking about something else.”

I think that we are required to keep all these laws but we just don’t bother because it won’t affect the salvation of those who’ve been saved. Peter was very frank about this, in Acts 15. But, Doctor, yes we do observe the law on sacrifices. Every time we take part in mass we participate in the sacrifice of the Lamb, out of which all the blood was drained as he hung on the cross, AS REQUIRED BY LAW! Jesus certainly made sure that his followers would observe at least that much!

You wrote: “I don’t see that. To me, the whole point of Jesus is that we have all sinned against our all loving, immortal all-powerful God and there is nothing we can do to redeem ourselves and we all should burn in Hell for eternity.”

Doctor, let’s not forget the unforgivable sin… against the Holy Spirit…which takes us to the following sad story:

“‘Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet. Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.” When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him. About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?” “Yes,” she said, “that is the price.” Peter said to her, “How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.” At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband.’” (Acts 5: 1-10 NIV)

So, Peter, who had lied three times when he denied Jesus, still had the authority to comdemn Ananis and Sapphira…… for lying!!!

What was the difference between them?

Here it is: Ananias and Sapphira belonged to the earth, so much so that they couldn’t bear to part with it entirely. On the other hand, when Jesus said to Peter “follow me!” Peter, together with his brother Andrew, walked away from his fishing nets and his livelihood. Peter was “living” in the biblical sense. He belongs to God and not to the earth. Ananias and Sapphira belonged to the earth. You see, Jesus had said of His disciples, including Peter “They are not of the world, even as I am not of it.” (John 17: 16 NIV)

Ananias and Sapphira were under the Law and died by it. Peter, WHILST LIVING IN THIS WORLD, was also under the Law and he, too, had to die by it. The difference is that Ananias and Sapphira didn’t belong to Jesus, so they died on their own. Peter belongs to Jesus, so he died with Jesus as He hung upon the cross. So when Peter lied, by denying Jesus, he had already paid for his sins, in the person of Jesus Christ. But, yes, they were sins, otherwise Jesus wouldn’t have had to pay for them. And Peter wouldn’t have wept when he realized what he had done.

That is the manner in which Christ set His people “free” from the Law, not by bringing the law to an end as so many want to believe, but by being punished on behalf of all His followers. It’s the double jeopardy rule.
 
I have tattoos and wanted to get more - but if I’ve come to the conclusion that if I had any money, there are more important things to spend it on than my body beautiful. How could I justify keeping excess cash if it was spent on vanity like this? There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with them though.
 
PJR said:
Ok, here’s something for you young gals who may be pondering the notion of getting a cute tatoo after you’ve had too much tequila in Cancun.

Picture your wedding day. Lovely white dress, no other time in your life when you want to look more demure, you walk up the aisle while the cello is playing the Pachelbel Canon in D and everyone’s eyes are glued to the dragon on your ankle and the BIG orange and green something on your shoulder. Make sure you match the flowers to the color of the tatoo.

Fast forward to your 4th child. The cute little butterfly on your butt now looks like a big purple ATTACK OF THE KILLER MOTH!!

I know no one with tatoos who doesn’t regret it later. Make sure you keep them in places that will be hidden by normal business clothing too. It can kill your chances of a promotion 20 yrs later, follow the military officer’s rule about them.
Click to expand...
You know… not all people are drunk when they get a tattoo… any quality place wont let you get one if your drunk. Plus certain tattoos could go fine with a wedding dress… and if it’s on the butt no one is going to see it at the wedding reception… (plus I would never get one on my butt… a. awkward b. ouch c. just not for me)
 
I just got a tattoo of the euchrist (from shoulder dove, bread that is bloody cup of blood sitting in crown of thorns three nails and on the background a couple of verses from john chap 6 and all of 1 cor 13 in latin) I got it for devotianal purpuse. if the tattoo is not vulger (naked women devils ect,) and the money used for it does not need to be used for basic needs (feeding family, rent ect,) then it is not immoral.
 
I’m thinking of getting a tattoo soon. It would be on my upper arm, but I’m not sure if I should get one like my SEARCH cross or a Crucifix. Thank God I have two arms.
 
CatholicPoet said:
Leviticus 19: 28 reads “Do not lacerate your bodies for the dead, and do not tattoo yourselves. I am the LORD.”

Matthew 5:17-19 says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

The NAB footnote on verse 19 says “Probably these commandments means those of the Mosaic law. But this is an interim ethic ‘until heaven and earth pass away.’”

A second footnote reads: “This statement of Jesus’ position concerning the Mosaic law is composed of traditional material from Matthew’s sermon documentation (see the note on Matthew 5:1-7:29), other Q material (cf Matthew 18; Luke 16:17), and the evangelist’s own editorial touches. To fulfill the law appears at first to mean a literal enforcement of the law in the least detail: until heaven and earth pass away nothing of the law will pass (Matthew 5:18). Yet the “passing away” of heaven and earth is not necessarily the end of the world understood, as in much apocalyptic literature, as the dissolution of the existing universe. The “turning of the ages” comes with the apocalyptic event of Jesus’ death and resurrection, and those to whom this gospel is addressed are living in the new and final age, prophesied by Isaiah as the time of “new heavens and a new earth” (Isaiah 65:17; 66:22). Meanwhile, during Jesus’ ministry when the kingdom is already breaking in, his mission remains within the framework of the law, though with significant anticipation of the age to come, as the following antitheses (Matthew 5:21-48) show.”

Luke 16: 16-17 says: “The law and the prophets lasted until John; but from then on the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone who enters does so with violence. It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest part of a letter of the law to become invalid.”

And the footnote says: “John the Baptist is presented in Luke’s gospel as a transitional figure between the period of Israel, the time of promise, and the period of Jesus, the time of fulfillment. With John, the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises has begun.”

Also, there is no doubt that Paul often pulled from the OT to give examples of how judge the morality of an act. Based on that, I’d play it safe and not get a tattoo. You might be able to make a case that this particular element of Leviticus is no longer morally binding, but I wouldn’t risk it.

Also, there is the arguement that tattooing is a sin of vanity – what God made me wasn’t good enough, so I’m going to improve it by redecorating. I’m not sure how theologically strong this arguement is – certainly, it would be a case-by-case basis – but there may well be something to it.

There’s no doubt that among young people today, tattooing is the “in” thing to do. I actually went to the mall today (it was my first trip to the mall in years) and I have to admit, I was surprised by the number of twenty-somethings – male and female – who had a great deal of tattoos and facial piercings.It left me wondering several things:
  1. Where are these people when they aren’t at the mall? Do they sleep there? How come I never see them in the real world?
  2. What do they do when they go on a job interview? When they hit their 40s and are still chasing a mop in the food court at the mall, will they begin to reflect on how the tattoos might have been a bad idea?
  3. How do I get into the business of tattoo removal? After all, once the bubble bursts on this fad, there are going to be a lot of folks who are going to shell out a lot of green to get that stuff taken off.
So – short answer – getting a tattoo *might or might not *be immoral in the days after the Resurrection. However, it is absolutely morally safe to refrain from getting a tattoo.

I’d play it safe.
Click to expand...
Leviticus 19:28 has to deal with the mouring of the dead, you should not cut yourself or tatoo your skin in mouring for the dead. See back then there are those who would cut or tatoo them selves for someone who has died. This doesn’t mean you are not allowed to get a tatoo. It means you should not get one when you mourn for the dead.
You claim that one should not get a tatoo, let me ask you this: Do you trim off the hair on your temples or clip the edges of your beard. Do you shave you face or get a hair cut. If so why? It says you shouldn’t
Do you eat meat that has not been drained of its blood? If you buy meat from the store, the blood is not drained? It says you shouldn’t

Leviticus 20
If a man commits adultry with another mans wife, both the man and woman must be put to death. Do you believe this is right? It says you should.

The point that I am trying to make is that you can’t pick which laws you want. You either do what they all say like trimming your beard it says not to but we shave. So if getting a tatoo is bad then you shaving is also bad. You say Leviticus is no longer morally binding but you won’t risk it. Then stop shaving, stop getting your hair cut, put to death every man and woman who commit adultry. If anyone curses their father or mother they must be put to death. Tell your priest never to cut their hair or shave their face. If you don’t want to risk it then obey all of it.
 
rev kevin

Greetings!

You wrote “Leviticus 19:28 has to deal with the mouring of the dead, you should not cut yourself or tatoo your skin in mouring for the dead. See back then there are those who would cut or tatoo them selves for someone who has died. This doesn’t mean you are not allowed to get a tatoo. It means you should not get one when you mourn for the dead.”

BUT Leviticus 19: 28 contains TWO separate commands: 1st Command is “do not cut your bodies for the dead”; 2nd Command is “or put tattoo marks on yourselves.” In those days it was customary for people in mourning to shave their heads and cut themselves (also mentioned in Deuteronomy 14: 1, Jeremiah 16: 6 and Jeremiah 48: 37) but NOT to tattoo themselves. I believe that was another matter.

You also wrote “Leviticus 20 If a man commits adultry with another mans wife, both the man and woman must be put to death. Do you believe this is right? It says you should.”

Indeed you should, per the law. In fact, Ananias and Sapphira were killed, AFTER the cucifixion, for telling a simple lie (Acts 5). But, since Jesus has already been put to death for all the sins of those He saved, it would be wrong to put adulterers to death, because we need to give people the benefit of the doubt and so assume that Jesus has already been punished for them, too. It’s the double jeopardy rule.

You also wrote “The point that I am trying to make is that you can’t pick which laws you want. You either do what they all say like trimming your beard it says not to but we shave. So if getting a tatoo is bad then you shaving is also bad. You say Leviticus is no longer morally binding but you won’t risk it. Then stop shaving, stop getting your hair cut, put to death every man and woman who commit adultry. If anyone curses their father or mother they must be put to death. Tell your priest never to cut their hair or shave their face. If you don’t want to risk it then obey all of it.”

I agree. We must keep ALL the laws per Matthew 5: 17,18 including not getting tattooed. But we’re too weak for that so we must all hope that we’re included amongst those that Jesus died for, otherwise we’ll end up like Ananias and Sapphira.
 
Frank_Mitchell said:
rev kevin

Greetings!

You wrote “Leviticus 19:28 has to deal with the mouring of the dead, you should not cut yourself or tatoo your skin in mouring for the dead. See back then there are those who would cut or tatoo them selves for someone who has died. This doesn’t mean you are not allowed to get a tatoo. It means you should not get one when you mourn for the dead.”

BUT Leviticus 19: 28 contains TWO separate commands: 1st Command is “do not cut your bodies for the dead”; 2nd Command is “or put tattoo marks on yourselves.” In those days it was customary for people in mourning to shave their heads and cut themselves (also mentioned in Deuteronomy 14: 1, Jeremiah 16: 6 and Jeremiah 48: 37) but NOT to tattoo themselves. I believe that was another matter.

You also wrote “Leviticus 20 If a man commits adultry with another mans wife, both the man and woman must be put to death. Do you believe this is right? It says you should.”

Indeed you should, per the law. In fact, Ananias and Sapphira were killed, AFTER the cucifixion, for telling a simple lie (Acts 5). But, since Jesus has already been put to death for all the sins of those He saved, it would be wrong to put adulterers to death, because we need to give people the benefit of the doubt and so assume that Jesus has already been punished for them, too. It’s the double jeopardy rule.

You also wrote “The point that I am trying to make is that you can’t pick which laws you want. You either do what they all say like trimming your beard it says not to but we shave. So if getting a tatoo is bad then you shaving is also bad. You say Leviticus is no longer morally binding but you won’t risk it. Then stop shaving, stop getting your hair cut, put to death every man and woman who commit adultry. If anyone curses their father or mother they must be put to death. Tell your priest never to cut their hair or shave their face. If you don’t want to risk it then obey all of it.”

I agree. We must keep ALL the laws per Matthew 5: 17,18 including not getting tattooed. But we’re too weak for that so we must all hope that we’re included amongst those that Jesus died for, otherwise we’ll end up like Ananias and Sapphira.
Click to expand...
Hi
Yes I agree that Leviticus19:28 says not to cut your bodies and not to mark you skin with tatoos. But there is one little word that makes them mean the same, for the same thing. and the word is “or.” 28 “Never cut your bodies in mourning for the dead or mark your skin with tatoos, for I am the Lord.” If it was not meant for the mourning for the dead I believe that the tatoo part would be seperate verse, ie 28 “Never cut your bodies in mourning for the dead.” 29 “Never mark you skin with tatoos.” Therefore it stands to reason it is meant for the mourning for the dead.

Deuteronomy 14:1 Makes no mention of tatoos
Jeremiah 16:6 Makes no mention of tatoos.
Jeremiah 48:37 Makes no mention of tatoos.
All 3 make no mention of tatoos, so would this mean that tatoos are ok. and why wouldn’t you give the same benefit of the doubt for a person who gets a tatoo that you give someone who commited adultry. But I do agree with you that Matthew 5:17-18 seems like its a double jeopardy rule. But it does say …even the smallest of God’s laws will remain until its purpose is achieved." This could mean until his deat on the cross for our sins is achieved.

O.K. The point I was getting at is if someone is afraid to get a tatoo because they don’t want to take that risk, then why would they risk all the other laws. See you can’t say that I won’t get a tatoo because the law says not to but its ok to get my hair cut or shave even though the law says not to. If you obey one law and not the rest your still taking a risk. You are still disobeying the rest of the laws. Its like saying I disobeyed all the laws but I obeyed one law and didn’t get a tatoo. Or yes officer I disobeyed all the rules of the road but I used my turn signal. But to say I won’t get a tatoo because I don’t want to take that risk makes no sence at all of you disobey the rest of the laws.
 
rev Kevin

Thank you for your reply.

I understand your reasoning with regard to the word “or” but do not agree with it. In actual fact, it breaks up the verse so as to restrict “for the dead” to the first practice (cutting one’s body). If it were “and” instead of “or”, then I would agree with you. Or if “for the dead” appeared at the end of the verse, then, again, I would agree with you.

The fact that Deuteronomy 14:1, Jeremiah 16:6 and Jeremiah 48:37 make no mention of tattoos is because all three were dealing specifically with practices concerning mourning and such practices did not include getting tattooed. Which is why Leviticus 19: 28 says not to get tattooed as a separate command, because it’s unrelated to mourning. That’s what I’ve been able to gather from all my readings.

I DON’T think it’s OK to get my hair cut or get shaved. I fully admit I’m breaking an awful lot of Mosaic laws. Which is why I need Jesus. And so does everyone else. Even Job, the great keeper of the Law, needs Jesus. He said “I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.” (Job 19: 25 NIV)

But regarding your statement that “If you obey one law and not the rest your still taking a risk” I think that the only risk, for those that Jesus saved, is to become “least in the kingdom of heaven”, as He stated. But as for the others, then I agree with you. I think it makes no difference if a non-saved person gets tattooed to the eyeballs……
 
Frank_Mitchell said:
rev Kevin

Thank you for your reply.

I understand your reasoning with regard to the word “or” but do not agree with it. In actual fact, it breaks up the verse so as to restrict “for the dead” to the first practice (cutting one’s body). If it were “and” instead of “or”, then I would agree with you. Or if “for the dead” appeared at the end of the verse, then, again, I would agree with you.

The fact that Deuteronomy 14:1, Jeremiah 16:6 and Jeremiah 48:37 make no mention of tattoos is because all three were dealing specifically with practices concerning mourning and such practices did not include getting tattooed. Which is why Leviticus 19: 28 says not to get tattooed as a separate command, because it’s unrelated to mourning. That’s what I’ve been able to gather from all my readings.

I DON’T think it’s OK to get my hair cut or get shaved. I fully admit I’m breaking an awful lot of Mosaic laws. Which is why I need Jesus. And so does everyone else. Even Job, the great keeper of the Law, needs Jesus. He said “I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.” (Job 19: 25 NIV)

But regarding your statement that “If you obey one law and not the rest your still taking a risk” I think that the only risk, for those that Jesus saved, is to become “least in the kingdom of heaven”, as He stated. But as for the others, then I agree with you. I think it makes no difference if a non-saved person gets tattooed to the eyeballs……
Click to expand...
Your welcome

As far as the “or” thing, I respectfully disagree with you based on the definition of the following.
The word “or” is used as a function word to indicate alternative {coffee or tea} {sink or swim} {cut or tatoo}.
The deffinition of “and” is used as a function word to join words or word groups of the same grammatical rank or function. {2 and 2 make 4}.
The words “and/or” used as a function word to indicate that either and or or may apply {cats and/or dogs means cats and dogs or cats or dogs} {cut and/or tatoo means, cut and tatoo, or cut or tatoo}
Based on this I find that it is not a seperate command but one command meaning 2 things for the same reason, only if its for the mouring of the dead.

But as far a everything eles goes, I agree with you.
 
rev Kevin

Greetings.

Re the definition of “or” you are very clear but your reasoning is not exhaustive. In Webster’s, the explanations of “or” include the following: “an alternative between different or unlike things, states or actions (wolves or bears are never seen in that part of the country)”.

So, per my understanding:

1 (Webster’s): Wolves

1 (Leviticus): Cutting your bodies for the dead

2 (Webster’s): OR

2 (Leviticus): OR

3 (Webster’s): bears

3 (Leviticus): getting tattooed

4 (Webster’s): are never seen in that part of the country.

4 (Leviticus): are both forbidden.

I consider “cutting your bodies for the dead” as a single unit, in the above construction, because it was standard practice to cut one’s body for the dead per Deuteronomy 14:1, Jeremiah 16:6 and Jeremiah 48:37, but those passages make NO mention of tattoos as a sign of mourning.
 
Frank_Mitchell said:
rev Kevin

Greetings.

Re the definition of “or” you are very clear but your reasoning is not exhaustive. In Webster’s, the explanations of “or” include the following: “an alternative between different or unlike things, states or actions (wolves or bears are never seen in that part of the country)”.

So, per my understanding:

1 (Webster’s): Wolves

1 (Leviticus): Cutting your bodies for the dead

2 (Webster’s): OR

2 (Leviticus): OR

3 (Webster’s): bears

3 (Leviticus): getting tattooed

4 (Webster’s): are never seen in that part of the country.

4 (Leviticus): are both forbidden.

I consider “cutting your bodies for the dead” as a single unit, in the above construction, because it was standard practice to cut one’s body for the dead per Deuteronomy 14:1, Jeremiah 16:6 and Jeremiah 48:37, but those passages make NO mention of tattoos as a sign of mourning.

Hi
I also used the Webster’s Dictionary Brand New Edition. I also have concidered what how you view this and can see what you mean but I am going to stick by what I said and I’m sure you will stick by what you said. We both have different reasoning on this and we can go back and forth and get nowhere. Its been nice talking with you and I hope to talk with you again on another tread.
Click to expand...
 
Would God be mad if you painted the same picture on yourself everyday, then washed it off when you took a shower and then painted it back on?

Instead of arguing over trivial matters such as tattoos, go feed the homeless, unless you got some kind of vulgar display on your body, I highly doubt God is going to care that you had your wife’s name painted on your chest, or some tribal sign, or least of all the cross on you.

Like someone said, the church has given no definite position, probably because it’s not something of great concern, so stop worrying about such things.

What’s next, the correct way to hold a fork without offending God?
 
I have a small tattoo on my the small of my back, it’s of a cross.
 
Phoenix_7 said:
I know someone who is considering getting a tattoo of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary as a constant reminder of the faith to which he has pleged himself. However, his dad is of the opinion that getting a tattoo, regardless of what it is or the reason for getting it, is an offense against God because it is disrespecting the temple of the Holy Spirit. Does anyone know an appropriate response? Certainly he wants to both respect the wishes of his father, but also wants the tattoo. As far as I know, the Catechism doesn’t say anything about tattoos being morally wrong…what do you think?
Click to expand...
Hi,
I’ve read through a couple of pages here and can’t believe the the answers. I have two tats on my right arm one is just an extension of the other.
I go them before I truly came to Christ, personally I’ve seen or thought of a few Catholic symbols I’d like to get i.e. a symbol of a fish right below my right thumb, why so that anyone who shook my hand would see I am a Christian. But instead I wear a two inch Benedictine Cross around my neck… that works great.
Code: 
If they are not fully accepted Christ, regardless of the religious faith they were brought up in.  Well they are not going to understand your objections... You can't bring someone faith, you can't make them believe, Faith can't even be destroyed only abandoned.
People do what they feel like doing not what they ought to do.

My father was in the Navy, never got a tattoo, when he seen mine (being the oldest of seven, he was jumping up and down shouting bleeps saying I was in the Navy and never got any bleeping tattoos (Me, I was 22-3 yrs. old).

You can make a suggestion and reason with them by stating how you feel and why.

Now if you were a student of the bible or maybe he might be, someone may say, Jesus had a tattoo and point to Revelations as a reason to get one:

RSV
Rev 19:16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, King of kings and Lord of lords.

(NASB) Rev 19:16, "And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

But John is using imagery, not that Jesus has an actual tatoo, But the thigh is where a warrior would hang his sword. Meaning the thighs of a soldier needed to be powerful to sustain the duration of battle.

God bless, :highprayer:
John
 
Frank_Mitchell said:
Doctor, good afternoon!

You wrote: “I don’t see that. To me, the whole point of Jesus is that we have all sinned against our all loving, immortal all-powerful God and there is nothing we can do to redeem ourselves and we all should burn in Hell for eternity.”

Doctor, let’s not forget the unforgivable sin… against the Holy Spirit…which takes us to the following sad story:

So, Peter, who had lied three times when he denied Jesus, still had the authority to comdemn Ananis and Sapphira…… for lying!!!

What was the difference between them?

Here it is: Ananias and Sapphira belonged to the earth, so much so that they couldn’t bear to part with it entirely. On the other hand, when Jesus said to Peter “follow me!” Peter, together with his brother Andrew, walked away from his fishing nets and his livelihood. Peter was “living” in the biblical sense. He belongs to God and not to the earth. Ananias and Sapphira belonged to the earth. You see, Jesus had said of His disciples, including Peter “They are not of the world, even as I am not of it.” (John 17: 16 NIV)
.
Click to expand...
Hi Frank,
Peter denied being a Gallilean, and Christ to save his own ***, He never left Him Jesus, because Peter kept Jesus in sight, he found out its cold being outside of Jesus therefore he warmed himself by the coal fire, there are five steps to Peters’ fall See Bishop Fulton Sheen on that topic, and like Peter we all fall almost exactly the same way.

What Ananias and Sapphira did was tell Peter and the whole community that they were selling their property and donating it all to the community, Their crime lies not in the lie they told because all they had to do was just as it says in Pro 6;1-6 plead with the community that they made a pledge out of compassion they could not keep, and they would have been released from that pledge… however they kept a portion back from themselves and relished in the glory they were going to receive like he others who laid their proceeds @ the apostles feet (Acts 4:32-37) who were the embodiment of the response of the ideal believers.
Where Ananias and Sapphira became greedy and selfish it was a far cry from the sacrificial living the rest of the community was living… The Church pure is the Church powerful, where God is active people want to join.

Peter who denied Christ before receiving the Holy Spirit, later died a death which after Pentecost, nothing no one stood for Christ more than Peter, he kept his Faith in Christ to his death on a Cross upside down.

God did great things in the beginnings of His Church

God Bless,:highprayer:
John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top