Addictions, bad and good........tattoos of Bible verses; thoughts?

[Heleadethme]

13 minutes ago, farouk said:

@Heleadethme I guess my understanding of how the different parts of Scripture fit together is dispensational: I'm very fallible in my understanding, but I guess I am guided by the idea that instead of now being Old Testament Jews in the land under the law - with bushy beards, etc. - we are New Testament believers for whom the Gospel as opposed to the law is the rule; and some young ppl - exercising Romans 14 Christian liberty might choose certain means that some other Christians equally motivated by Gospel zeal might not.

I know the Reformed constituency - which I appreciate in various ways - would see the law as the rule of the believer's life; I myself, in all my fallibility, would tend to see better the dispensational view that it is the Gospel that is the rule.

It's hard to see you as being neutral about this with regards to "liberty" when you are ACTIVELY encouraging Christians to get tattooed.  That appears to be the actual PURPOSE of your threads on this topic.  WHY?

[farouk]

7 minutes ago, Heleadethme said:

It's hard to see you as being neutral about this with regards to "liberty" when you are ACTIVELY encouraging Christians to get tattooed.  That appears to be the actual PURPOSE of your threads on this topic.  WHY?

My starting point is probably near to the fact that various things in the Old Testament which applied to a dispensation when Jews with bushy beards lived in the land under the law; were forbidden pork, were bound to the Levitical priesthood. All sorts of things happened in the OT which do not seem to apply today: Danite virgins dancing in the vineyard in order to obtain husbands and thereby preserve a name in Israel; the duty of an husband's brother, etc.

Then today as I see it the rule of the New Testament believer's life is the Gospel - with all its privileges and opportunities, rather than the law, as defined in the OT.

There is also the fact that some Christians do choose the inked Bible verse means by way of pursuing the prospect of many witness conversations or as a silent testimony. This is a fact, whatever I or anyone else may say about it. It is done widely by believers, especially young Christians.

I do think there is scope for this kind of discussion. We can disagree, of course, in the course of such discussion: one hopes we can disagree respectfully.

[farouk]

@Logostician Back a bit: "I also think Christian tattoos are good.  They aren't marking yourself for the dead because Jesus is risen and alive, and is the source and sustainer of all life.  I don't have any tattoos, and am probably too old now, but I've thought about a lamb with a cross above it on one arm, and a lion with a crown above it, and "King of Kings" below it, on the other.

Any Godly expression of faith and love for Jesus is good."

What you say is indeed what a lot of younger believers now seem to believe and practise, anyway.

[Ocean]

On 2/23/2023 at 7:07 PM, farouk said:

Hi @Ocean Thanks for your comments.

Interesting that @Bropro posted earlier in this thread a particular usage of 'affliction':

..................................

1 Corinthians 16:15 (KJV)
¹⁵   I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)

what are you saying here? I think you have this response confused with the one you posted in another thread where the word affliction is in the verse you applied

the word addicted in the verse you quote here would actually be better translated as DEVOTED.  However when someone wants to go ahead and do something that is not actually given by God to do, no stone will be unturned in procuring what they might consider as proof or permission to do the thing that is not helpful

smh

[Heleadethme]

4 hours ago, farouk said:

My starting point is probably near to the fact that various things in the Old Testament which applied to a dispensation when Jews with bushy beards lived in the land under the law; were forbidden pork, were bound to the Levitical priesthood. All sorts of things happened in the OT which do not seem to apply today: Danite virgins dancing in the vineyard in order to obtain husbands and thereby preserve a name in Israel; the duty of an husband's brother, etc.

Then today as I see it the rule of the New Testament believer's life is the Gospel - with all its privileges and opportunities, rather than the law, as defined in the OT.

There is also the fact that some Christians do choose the inked Bible verse means by way of pursuing the prospect of many witness conversations or as a silent testimony. This is a fact, whatever I or anyone else may say about it. It is done widely by believers, especially young Christians.

I do think there is scope for this kind of discussion. We can disagree, of course, in the course of such discussion: one hopes we can disagree respectfully.

People do all sorts of things "for God" and in the name of God, that are against His will.  It is not a valid argument for anything.

Along with privileges and opportunities and liberties afforded by the gospel there are also responsibilities and parameters.  And of whom much is given, much is required.  Liberty doesn't mean a free-for-all.

You know why rebellious "bad boys" in many generations like to get tattoos....precisely for the reason that it is bad and rebellious.   See, even the unbelieving rebellious world can discern tattoos for what they are while it seems many believers can't these days.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 25, 2023 by Heleadethme

[Marathoner]

5 hours ago, Heleadethme said:

It's hard to see you as being neutral about this with regards to "liberty" when you are ACTIVELY encouraging Christians to get tattooed.  That appears to be the actual PURPOSE of your threads on this topic.  WHY?

I've noted the same, sister. The OP evidences a fixation with tattoos and attempts to justify this matter by framing tattoos in godly garb. The stage is set by obfuscating the contextual meaning of the term "addiction," which is not indicative of something wholesome or worthwhile. Others have pointed out that the contested word in this topic means "dedicated" or "dedication" according to context, and I'm in agreement with them. 

English is a language laden with nuanced meaning driven by context. For example: "I love pizza!", or "I love my mother!", are not equivalent in meaning by any means. We know this is true by means of the context in which "love" appears. I sincerely hope that further explanation isn't required. 



We do indeed have great liberty in the Spirit of the Lord, but we are not free to do whatever we please under the sun without consequences. The Lord will not by any means prevent us from committing blunders or missing the boat, falling off the pier, and plunging headlong into the lake. Glug glug glug glug, into the water we go! 

Ah, but then the Lord teaches us through those consequences of our error. It's all part of being conformed to the image of the Son of God by the Spirit from glory to glory. One step at a time... we press on to the finish line. 

Hopefully, we won't have to fall into the lake more than a few times... 
 

[Marathoner]

I'm not in the habit of gazing at a person's tattoos. So someone has tattoos... so what?

I'm also not in the habit of examining what someone else is eating (or not eating as the case may be), unless I happen to be serving their table. In that case I'm paying attention to food, drink, barren plates, the needs of those whom I serve, and the like.

"I'm eating pork!"

"Okay." 

"What are you eating?"

"Something to silence the stomach." 

"Why aren't you eating pork like me?"

"Because I'm not you." 

That's an illustration of what I see afoot with this tattoo thing, @farouk. So... someone has a tattoo. Okay. 

So what?

[farouk]

2 minutes ago, Marathoner said:

I'm not in the habit of gazing at a person's tattoos. So someone has tattoos... so what?

I'm also not in the habit of examining what someone else is eating (or not eating as the case may be), unless I happen to be serving their table. In that case I'm paying attention to food, drink, barren plates, the needs of those whom I serve, and the like.

"I'm eating pork!"

"Okay." 

"What are you eating?"

"Something to silence the stomach." 

"Why aren't you eating pork like me?"

"Because I'm not you." 

That's an illustration of what I see afoot with this tattoo thing, @farouk. So... someone has a tattoo. Okay. 

So what?

@Marathoner Interesting points; thank-you.

Various things in the Old Testament which applied to a dispensation when Jews with bushy beards lived in the land under the law; were forbidden pork, were bound to the Levitical priesthood. All sorts of things happened in the OT which do not seem to apply today: Danite virgins dancing in the vineyard in order to obtain husbands and thereby preserve a name in Israel; the duty of an husband's brother, etc.

Then today as I see it the rule of the New Testament believer's life is the Gospel - with all its privileges and opportunities, rather than the law, as defined in the OT.

[Marathoner]

2 hours ago, farouk said:

@Marathoner Interesting points; thank-you.

Various things in the Old Testament which applied to a dispensation when Jews with bushy beards lived in the land under the law; were forbidden pork, were bound to the Levitical priesthood. All sorts of things happened in the OT which do not seem to apply today: Danite virgins dancing in the vineyard in order to obtain husbands and thereby preserve a name in Israel; the duty of an husband's brother, etc.

Then today as I see it the rule of the New Testament believer's life is the Gospel - with all its privileges and opportunities, rather than the law, as defined in the OT.

This is where I typically walk away, but I'll make an exception in this case for the sake of the topic and those who are reading. It's worthwhile, I think.

I never mentioned the Old Covenant, bushy beards, and whatever else you wrote about above. That has nothing to do with being fixated upon something to the degree that a measure of blindness accompanies that fixation. In this case, the extraordinary lengths you've employed on this forum to spiritualize marking this flesh and blood body.

More than one has brought this matter to your attention, that the issue at hand is not the marking of this body with ink but rather, an obsession with such a thing, as if men or women have occasion to glory in this body which returns to the dust from whence it came. 

We're only here on this earth for a little while, farouk. The Lord declares this to us all according to His word, 'All flesh is grass.' There is no glory to be had in this body of corruption. All glory belongs to the Holy One.

So, I'll humor your argumentation by pointing toward the obvious, my friend. Seeing as how God does not reckon the measure of a man according to outward appearance, heritage, the washing of hands, ritual sacrifice, and the like --- in short, the sacrifice of bulls is like murder to the Lord God --- then why do you pursue the same? 

Do you believe that markings upon this body are outward symbols of devotion to the Lord? Why, when you know very well that the inside of the cup is what matters to the Lord of glory? This is why I insist that tattoos are themselves meaningless, and why I pay such things no mind. Therefore, we say, "So what?"

Whatever we do, let us do so in secret, farouk. It's better to give water to the thirsty... clothing to the naked... to visit the sick in their affliction... than seek to draw attention to ourselves by way of garish displays of vanity. Does it matter if that display is a cross or a flaming skull?

No.

It's been pointed out that loving our neighbor as ourselves is how we serve the Lord of glory, yes? More than pointed out... it's His commandment to us. His apostle also warns us about being mastered by anything in this world so that, understanding how all things are permitted to us, we know that not all things are expedient. Fixating upon this flesh in such a way isn't expedient. Why, when this flesh returns to the dust?

That's all. 

Edited February 26, 2023 by Marathoner
Typo

[farouk]

Thank-you, @Marathoner for those thoughtful comments.

I appreciate you taking the time and trouble to express what you have said.

Another angle has also come to mind, and this is a possible, oblique parallel with circumcision.

Under the Old Economy of the OT law, circumcision was an obligatory part of the covenant. Whereas Paul in the NT argues very strongly that compulsory circumcision as part of the Gospel message undermines that message, because it shows trust in law-keeping rather than in the Gospel of Christ which is received by grace through faith. Paul argues this very strongly indeed. In Galatians 5.6 Paul says: "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love."

And yet Paul also circumcised Timothy (Acts 16.3). Why? It was - not on account of any inherent value to it, but - it would give Timothy more of a Gospel opportunity to the Jews that he would be likely to be moving among.

Perhaps some believers would see at least an oblique parallel with the idea of a faith based tattoo such as a Bible verse? not that it is required on the one had, nor that on the contrary it will supposedly undermine one's salvation, but rather as a likely Gospel opportunity among the many conversations that would be likely with young ppl and others. (All the young ppl with Bible verses tattooed with whom I have spoken seem to have received them with a view to them becoming opportunities in spreading the Gospel.)

( cc @TheBlade @Rosie1jack2pauline3 )

Edited February 26, 2023 by farouk