"No need to wear the pagan uniform, and even worse to envy it."

I asked if we should not consider the fact that they were forbidden. I never even implied that I think we should be beholden to OT restrictions, but they certainly do give an interesting picture of the kinds of things God is picky about. And if He was picky about body markings in the OT, even though they are not expressly forbidden in the NT, why would we not consider them questionable?

Here’s my quote again-

Seems to me that the burden of proof would be that while they were forbidden for the CoI in the OT, this does not carry over at all to the NT Christian. The OT is written for our learning and admonition, and IMO, even though many OT restrictions don’t apply to us today doctrinally or culturally, they should give us a clue as to what God desires from His holy people.

Perhaps that will provide more clarity by showing where the emphasis is in my own thought process.

As for God having a tattoo, I think this line of reasoning is incredibly disrespectful, because even though God has marks in His body, He most certainly did not go down to Monkeybones (a local tattoo parlor) and get inked up. Who gave Him His tat- Gabriel?

Next thing you know we will be having sword swallowing on Sunday morning since God has one coming out of His mouth.

[Greg Long] There are many things God is and does that we are to try to be and do. God is holy; we are to be holy. God is righteous and loving and just and kind and gracious and we are to imitate Him (yes, I know we cannot ever be like God or even fulfill these requirements in our natural sinful condition without the help of Christ and the Holy Spirit, but that’s beside the point). So it’s not enough to say, “Well, yes God does that, but He’s God and you’re not.” There needs to be some other clear biblical indication that would help us understand God’s will in this matter for the NT Christian.

Remember, I’m not trying to prove that Christians SHOULD get tattoos. The burden of proof, of course, is on those who say Christians NEVER SHOULD.

And I fully agree that there are some very good reasons why a Christian should consider very carefully making a decision to get a tattoo. In many cases I would personally believe it to be unwise.

No argument from me. I would just say that God’s physical metaphorical or physical characteristics mandate our emulation (though white hair - any hair - seems exciting). To say that God has tattoos so I should have tattoos is not a reasonable argument for them. That’s the limit of my comment.

[Susan R] I asked if we should not consider the fact that they were forbidden. I never even implied that I think we should be beholden to OT restrictions, but they certainly do give an interesting picture of the kinds of things God is picky about. And if He was picky about body markings in the OT, even though they are not expressly forbidden in the NT, why would we not consider them questionable?

Susan, couldn’t I say the same thing about mixed-fiber clothing? “If [God] was picky about mixed-fiber clothing in the OT (or boiling a kid in its mother milk, etc., etc.), even though it is not expressly forbidden in the NT, why would we not consider it questionable?”

[Susan R] Here’s my quote again-

Seems to me that the burden of proof would be that while they were forbidden for the CoI in the OT, this does not carry over at all to the NT Christian. The OT is written for our learning and admonition, and IMO, even though many OT restrictions don’t apply to us today doctrinally or culturally, they should give us a clue as to what God desires from His holy people.

Perhaps that will provide more clarity by showing where the emphasis is in my own thought process.

Yes, in essence I agree—all of Scripture is profitable, including the OT. But the question is whether that verse answers the question of whether or not it is always wrong for a Christian to have a tattoo.

[Susan R] As for God having a tattoo, I think this line of reasoning is incredibly disrespectful, because even though God has marks in His body, He most certainly did not go down to Monkeybones (a local tattoo parlor) and get inked up. Who gave Him His tat- Gabriel?

It’s only disrespectful if you put it in that context. Why would a Christian have to go down to Monkeybones to get a tattoo?

[Susan R] Next thing you know we will be having sword swallowing on Sunday morning since God has one coming out of His mouth.

LOL!

[Greg Long] None of what you said answers the questions in my post.

Yes, the OT is written for our learning and admonition, but no, the OT commands don’t “carry over” into the NT by default.I agree in theory, but not everything is a command. Some are foundational principles that transcend culture and precede the Law (marriage comes to mind, and that is never given as a command, is it?).

So what constitutes truth that may carry over to us today? Does the law reflect the nature and character of God? For example, persistently rebellious children were to be put to death. We likely would not think that this carries over to today, but it does seem to emphasize that God considers honoring one’s parents very important (hey, the command is listed first in the “people” commands, before murder and adultery, and with a promise!), and yielding to one’s God ordained authorities.

The “no tattoo” command may not formally apply, but it IS something God commanded them in the OT for some reason. Was it a ceremonial reason, moral reason, or just there for us now for no good reason? I am still wrestling with the OT—>NT application thought, but 2 Tim 3:16-17 still says “all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness,” which would still apply in some way, shape, or form to all of the OT (and yes, I’m a “dish-pan-sensationalist” as a skit in our church phrased it).

It is reasonable to ask that if God has a tattoo (oy vey) where did He get it? What does it consist of? How does He display it and for what purpose?

As for your other questions, they are fair. I remember when my dad would not go into a grocery store that sold alcohol or cigarettes, nor would he do any chores or run any errands on Sunday. It was a matter of conscience for him, but in today’s world, how would he function? My thought on this is that you gotta buy the TP and Fruit of the Looms somewhere, and you have to take what you can get because the alternative is well nigh impossible in our society. But a tattoo- how is that a necessity on any planet?

Maybe I overthink things sometimes, but I seriously look at the OT commands and take some of them to heart. Pictures, for instance- I use framed Scriptures to adorn our walls, as well as pics of the family, but I don’t use prints of Picasso, Monet, etc… Not that art is bad or that it is wrong to hang pictures of people with ears on top of their heads, but I know if I hung one on my walls, in the back of my head I would be wondering what those pictures were of in Numbers 33:52- Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:

OK-So I’m a little OCD about everything. Sue me. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-taunt013.gif

Why would a Christian have to go down to Monkeybones to get a tattoo?

Well, why wouldn’t they? Think of all the people they could witness to while they are getting the crucifixion tattooed on their …. whatever.

[Daniel] In addition, if God does/will have a tattoo, then the question is, why is it wrong for a Christian? That is the burden of proof. One simply cannot say because He is God. Why is it wrong for a Christian but ok for God?

Wow, here’s another leap. Greg Long submitted Isa. 49:16 as evidence that God has names written on his hands. Might this be an anthropomorphism? Does god have hands? He is a spirit, we know, so it is at least questionable.

With regard to Rev. 19:16, we read that Christ has on a robe and written on his thigh King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Could it be that the title is written on the thigh of His robe? If I said, Bobby has on his jeans and “Bobby” written on his thigh, would it be absolutely clear that his leg had been written on? Maybe it is clearer than I think, but this in no way answers the question. If it does, then you must show how tattoos here an earth are the same as names on Deity. That’s a stretch.

I don’t mind if the burden of proof is on me for thinking tattoos are wrong. The verse in Leviticus and other verses referred to before shift the burden of proof. But these two descriptive passages showing the compassion of God and the glory of Christ don’t place the burden of proof back on the “no tattoo” side.

[Susan R] But a tattoo- how is that a necessity on any planet?

I don’t think anyone here is making the claim that it is a necessity. Just some of us don’t think we should go to the opposite extreme in saying it is universally wrong.

[Daniel]

[Susan R] But a tattoo- how is that a necessity on any planet?

I don’t think anyone here is making the claim that it is a necessity. Just some of us don’t think we should go to the opposite extreme in saying it is universally wrong.

Ok- tattoos are not really wrong, they’re just usually a bad idea. Cool. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/punk.gif I’m curious- what would be a good reason to have a tattoo?

As for my comparison, it has been brought forward that the OT commandments prohibited the combination of Lycra, Spandex, and cotton in your skivvies. But skivvies are a necessity, and tattoos are not. Just like those folks who are always boycotting this or that company because they support gay rights or abortion- you have to live in this world (I Cor 5:10) but you don’t have to partake in anything evil or questionable or unwise.

[Susan R]

[Daniel]

[Susan R] But a tattoo- how is that a necessity on any planet?

I don’t think anyone here is making the claim that it is a necessity. Just some of us don’t think we should go to the opposite extreme in saying it is universally wrong.

Ok- tattoos are not really wrong, they’re just usually a bad idea. Cool. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/punk.gif I’m curious- what would be a good reason to have a tattoo?

That’s a great question, Susan, and one that I would ask anyone who told me he is getting a tat.

[Susan R] As for my comparison, it has been brought forward that the OT commandments prohibited the combination of Lycra, Spandex, and cotton in your skivvies. But skivvies are a necessity, and tattoos are not. Just like those folks who are always boycotting this or that company because they support gay rights or abortion- you have to live in this world (I Cor 5:10) but you don’t have to partake in anything evil or questionable or unwise.

Agreed (although one could make the case the mixed-fiber clothing isn’t any more necessary now than it was in OT times…).

although one could make the case the mixed-fiber clothing isn’t any more necessary now than it was in OT times…

And what, pray tell, wouldst thou wear if thou didst not wear mixed-fiber clothing? Wouldst thou groweth thine own linen and cotton, have thy wife spin and weave until she taketh her weaver’s shuttle and beaneth thy head with it? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/diepig.gif

[Susan R]

although one could make the case the mixed-fiber clothing isn’t any more necessary now than it was in OT times…

And what, pray tell, wouldst thou wear if thou didst not wear mixed-fiber clothing? Wouldst thou groweth thine own linen and cotton, have thy wife spin and weave until she taketh her weaver’s shuttle and beaneth thy head with it? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/diepig.gif

Ha!

What I was trying to say is if God forbade me from wearing mixed-fiber clothing, I’m not sure any of those excuses would carry weight with him. I would have to obey no matter how difficult or inconvenient. Plus, if there were a demand for that kind of clothing, I’m sure there would be supply for it.

[Susan R] As for my comparison, it has been brought forward that the OT commandments prohibited the combination of Lycra, Spandex, and cotton in your skivvies. But skivvies are a necessity, and tattoos are not.

this is some really weak logic. first of all, they’re not a necessity. people survived for a very long time without them. also, they can be purchased without mixing materials. i have some 100% polypropylene underwear for cycling. if it was really a sin for a christian to wear blended fabrics, we’d be finding ways to manage, not finding excuses. probably, though, if there was any historic recognition of the sinfulness of blended fabrics, there would be plenty of non-blended clothes in walmart.

you could make a case that some principle from Leviticus 19:28 applies if the purpose is some part of a false religious system, but you don’t really need that verse for that. there are plenty of other verses new and old testament with that general principle. this verse is a specific application against idolotrous marking that was necessary for the israelites going into canaan.

[John Benzing] Wow, here’s another leap. Greg Long submitted Isa. 49:16 as evidence that God has names written on his hands. Might this be an anthropomorphism? Does god have hands? He is a spirit, we know, so it is at least questionable.

With regard to Rev. 19:16, we read that Christ has on a robe and written on his thigh King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Could it be that the title is written on the thigh of His robe? If I said, Bobby has on his jeans and “Bobby” written on his thigh, would it be absolutely clear that his leg had been written on? Maybe it is clearer than I think, but this in no way answers the question. If it does, then you must show how tattoos here an earth are the same as names on Deity. That’s a stretch.

I don’t mind if the burden of proof is on me for thinking tattoos are wrong. The verse in Leviticus and other verses referred to before shift the burden of proof. But these two descriptive passages showing the compassion of God and the glory of Christ don’t place the burden of proof back on the “no tattoo” side.

I completely concur with John. I have heard these verses before as arguments that God has tattoos, and I have never bought into these ideas. John nailed it. I would love to hear what Greg thinks about John’s comments.

[Matthew Richards] Gabe,

Your interpretation of Leviticus is probably very good. I am curious as to who determines which parts of Leviticus to follow and which parts not to follow? God says not to wear a mixed garment and you have a perfect explanation for the reason behind the command—no doubt there is an excellent explanation for why God told them not to scar in this manner as well back in those days. Let’s think through this one a bit…this is a great discussion!

I have always had two theories as to why God commanded the Israelites not to get tattoos. #1 - Because it is a defilement of our bodies that were made by him and are not our own. #2 - Because of its association with paganism. I do not know if it is an either/or type thing, maybe somewhat of both. I would say that both would be applicable in today’s society. Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost, and tattoos are often associated with paganism in our society (How many teenagers go out and get a tattoo in honor of their parents?) I would love to get into a discussion concerning the application of Levitical laws in general, but I do not think this is the proper thread for that.

[ChrisC]

[Susan R] As for my comparison, it has been brought forward that the OT commandments prohibited the combination of Lycra, Spandex, and cotton in your skivvies. But skivvies are a necessity, and tattoos are not.

this is some really weak logic. first of all, they’re not a necessity. people survived for a very long time without them. also, they can be purchased without mixing materials. i have some 100% polypropylene underwear for cycling. if it was really a sin for a christian to wear blended fabrics, we’d be finding ways to manage, not finding excuses. probably, though, if there was any historic recognition of the sinfulness of blended fabrics, there would be plenty of non-blended clothes in walmart.

Am I the only one that is laughing at the fact that a discussion about tattoos has turned into a discussion about various types of underwear :)

[Gabe Franklin]

[ChrisC]

[Susan R] As for my comparison, it has been brought forward that the OT commandments prohibited the combination of Lycra, Spandex, and cotton in your skivvies. But skivvies are a necessity, and tattoos are not.

this is some really weak logic. first of all, they’re not a necessity. people survived for a very long time without them. also, they can be purchased without mixing materials. i have some 100% polypropylene underwear for cycling. if it was really a sin for a christian to wear blended fabrics, we’d be finding ways to manage, not finding excuses. probably, though, if there was any historic recognition of the sinfulness of blended fabrics, there would be plenty of non-blended clothes in walmart.

Am I the only one that is laughing at the fact that a discussion about tattoos has turned into a discussion about various types of underwear :)

No- you are not the only one- and I am simultaneously chuckling while being completely grossed out- polypropylene? Are you kidding?

Up next on Sharper Iron- a “boxers or briefs” poll… http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/headache.gif

Anyway, I appreciate all the responses. IMO this has been a really fun thread, in spite of the fact that there is quite a bit of disagreement.

Edited to add humorous anecdote: I was just reminded of when I was a moderator at Crosswalk a few years ago, and some of us mods hatched a plot to make as many threads as possible about bottled water. We started threads in nearly every folder about how much bottled water cost vs. tap, if it is healthier, if it is a sin to buy bottled water with food stamps, if it was vanity to buy bottled water… it took folks awhile to catch on, but it was a hoot. I was momentarily tempted to see into how many threads I could interject comments about skivvies. Fortunately the temptation passed, but I got a good belly laugh out of it.