The Tattoo & Piercing page

[Christina]

I didn't get the tattoo in order to use it as a witnessing tool, I had it prior but it has been used since as a witnessing tool. I'm not suggesting people run out and get a tattoo so they can use it as a witnessing tool.

Should a person strike up a conversation about the laws in Leviticus, I would also show them where the Bible says that we (the church) are not under the Leviticus laws (as has already been mentioned and pointed out by Hootmon.) Let's also not forget that the person has the Holy Spirit to guide them in understanding and learning and they should be seeking out a solid doctrinal church to be fed and to grow.

At some point, the person's realtionship with Christ is going to have to be exactly that, between them and the Lord. It is their duty to read the Word and to learn. It won't take long before they realize that God's Word is not about picking and choosing what we want to believe or not believe and not about picking or choosing what commands we want to follow and which ones we don't. They will also see pretty quickly that there is freedom in Christ. God doesn't look down on me because of my tatoos so if a brother or sister wants to, then that's their choice, bottom line is the Bible (outside of Leviticus which is not binding for us) does not command a believer NOT to have them. As I said earlier, it's between the believer and the Lord.

Someone's distate for tattoos does not equal God commanding His children not to.

[Christina]

i just don't think it's a means by G-d intended us to witness.

This reminds me of the conversation on here not too long ago about going to a bar and having Bible study there...lol

[freeflykat]

I didn't get the tattoo in order to use it as a witnessing tool, I had it prior but it has been used since as a witnessing tool. I'm not suggesting people run out and get a tattoo so they can use it as a witnessing tool.

Should a person strike up a conversation about the laws in Leviticus, I would also show them where the Bible says that we (the church) are not under the Leviticus laws (as has already been mentioned and pointed out by Hootmon.) Let's also not forget that the person has the Holy Spirit to guide them in understanding and learning and they should be seeking out a solid doctrinal church to be fed and to grow.

At some point, the person's realtionship with Christ is going to have to be exactly that, between them and the Lord. It is their duty to read the Word and to learn. It won't take long before they realize that God's Word is not about picking and choosing what we want to believe or not believe and not about picking or choosing what commands we want to follow and which ones we don't. They will also see pretty quickly that there is freedom in Christ. God doesn't look down on me because of my tatoos so if a brother or sister wants to, then that's their choice, bottom line is the Bible (outside of Leviticus which is not binding for us) does not command a believer NOT to have them. As I said earlier, it's between the believer and the Lord.

Someone's distate for tattoos does not equal God commanding His children not to.

that is my understanding too that we are not under Leviticus law, so why is it quoted here?

[Christina]

that is my understanding too that we are not under Leviticus law, so why is it quoted here?

I think the poster was just saying it was a matter of time before it was used because in the past when the topic of tattoos comes up, someone always uses the Leviticus laws as a reason to say they are wrong...

[ImOnStandby221]

it's quoted here because, G-d at one point said it.

i agree that the obligation to the OT law is not for NT believers, no argument there.

but Paul said "all scripture" is profitable (II Timothy 3: 16), not just the NT. G-d has His reasons for giving His law.

and i never suggested for minute that G-d "looked down" on anyone for having tattoos.

[Christina]

I don't have an issue with people not liking them but that's where the line gets drawn. There is no scripture that binds the born again believer to any law that says they can't have a tattoo.

[ImOnStandby221]

I don't have an issue with people not liking them but that's where the line gets drawn. There is no scripture that binds the born again believer to any law that says they can't have a tattoo.

we're in agreement.

and i personally think a lot of tattoos are quite beautiful.

[millky]

I don't have any tattoos and I don't plan on getting any, not even a Christian one. Just doesn't appeal to me.

Tattoos are not a salvation issue and I don't have a problem with Christians having them. But I do think believers should think really hard about the image they're getting permanently inked on their bodies and the kind of witness it presents to the lost. So obviously you're not going to go and get a satanic image or a symbol of racism or hatred or anything to do with gratuitous violence or sex etc etc...and if you had something like that before you were saved you'd cover it up or remove it. :hat

[WVBORN56]

I don't have any and never considered getting one. I don't care for them. I would not however judge another for having one especially before salvation. God looked at the tax collector more favorably than the self righteous religious man. "Have mercy upon me Lord, a sinner."

Which man was saved? The man that looked good by the worlds standards or the man who cast himself on the mercy of the Lord who understood he was a sinner compared to a holy God?

[malron5]

personally I hate tats, always have, recently my step daughter who was bought up as a christian and sings in her church band , now has a tat of a butterfly on her shoulder and something on her ankle and some hearts on her wrist. I didn't like it and I told her so but I still love her and let her know that.
I agree with some of the other comments that its not a salvation issue, but the very fact that the world is indulging in tats more and more should tell christians that we should avoid them like the plague. I'm sure jesus said that we as believers should avoid the things of the world.