Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Tattoos

Expand Messages
  • Cheryl
    Dear Edgar, This is just my opinion, but it appears to me that the tatooing being mentioned in the OT passages seem to have some sort of religious connotations
    Message 1 of 12 , Mar 1, 2005
      Dear Edgar,
       
      This is just my opinion, but it appears to me that the tatooing being mentioned in the OT passages seem to have some sort of religious connotations to them.  I therefore think it now falls in the realm of Christian liberty since many people consider it just a form of body art like permanent makeup or henna designs.  However, I would not get one myself.  I don't relish the thought of what a beautiful rose turning into a withered rose on my body as I age.  There is also the issue of heavy metal intoxication from some of the dyes used for tatooing, allergic reaction and scars from it, and just plain getting sick of the design after a while.   I am thinking about a nose stud though.... :oP
       
      Cheryl
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 3:02 PM
      Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Tattoos


      In the Word of God, our LORD speaks that the Israelites were not to
      tattoo their body among other things that the surrounding heathens
      did.  I have met Christians in the past, that got tattoos, AFTER,
      they were professing Christians.  Most with Scripture verses and
      others with those tribal/pict style tattoos.

         How would you all look at this?  Is it a case of Christian
      liberty (as long as they do it moderately and modestly) or is it a
      moral issue and therefore sinful or not?

        Just curious about this one, I guess it would be on par with women
      and make-up, but then maybe not?

      Tattooless (even though I was a Marine),

      Edgar




    • Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
      Thanks Cheryl. I was thinking along the same lines as far as the religious of then vs. the fashion statement of today. Henna designs what s that? I too
      Message 2 of 12 , Mar 1, 2005
        Thanks Cheryl. I was thinking along the same lines as far as the
        religious of then vs. the fashion statement of today. "Henna
        designs" what's that? I too would worry about the other side
        effects plus the aging factor and the tattoo sagging into something
        less than appealing.

        I recently went to the 1st ever largest display of pre-Columbian
        Mexica (a.k.a. Aztec)museum artifacts outside of Mexico at the
        Goggeheim (spell?) Museum and I was facinated at their jewlery (that
        which escaped the gold-mongering Spainards), and their lip-plugs,
        wow, those look awesome, but I would get freakish looks if I donned
        one of those on today, unless of course I was around those Gothic
        dressing peoples running around nowadays!

        Thanks,

        Edgar

        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Cheryl"
        <cherylgrenon@l...> wrote:
        > Dear Edgar,
        >
        > This is just my opinion, but it appears to me that the tatooing
        being mentioned in the OT passages seem to have some sort of
        religious connotations to them. I therefore think it now falls in
        the realm of Christian liberty since many people consider it just a
        form of body art like permanent makeup or henna designs. However, I
        would not get one myself. I don't relish the thought of what a
        beautiful rose turning into a withered rose on my body as I age.
        There is also the issue of heavy metal intoxication from some of the
        dyes used for tatooing, allergic reaction and scars from it, and
        just plain getting sick of the design after a while. I am thinking
        about a nose stud though.... :oP
        >
        > Cheryl
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
        > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 3:02 PM
        > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Tattoos
        >
        >
        >
        > In the Word of God, our LORD speaks that the Israelites were not
        to
        > tattoo their body among other things that the surrounding
        heathens
        > did. I have met Christians in the past, that got tattoos,
        AFTER,
        > they were professing Christians. Most with Scripture verses and
        > others with those tribal/pict style tattoos.
        >
        > How would you all look at this? Is it a case of Christian
        > liberty (as long as they do it moderately and modestly) or is it
        a
        > moral issue and therefore sinful or not?
        >
        > Just curious about this one, I guess it would be on par with
        women
        > and make-up, but then maybe not?
        >
        > Tattooless (even though I was a Marine),
        >
        > Edgar
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        > ADVERTISEMENT
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > -------------------------------------------------------------------
        -----------
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub/
        >
        > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
        of Service.
      • Jasper
        Folks, perhaps a brief explanation would be provided on why this same interpretation and application (that the referenced tattooing was for religious purposes)
        Message 3 of 12 , Mar 2, 2005
           

          Folks, perhaps a brief explanation would be provided on why this same interpretation and application (that the referenced tattooing was for religious purposes) does not apply to the issue of images of God (that the referenced images were for worship purposes).   Thank you for your helpfulness.

           

          Jasper

           



          "Edgar A. Ibarra Jr." <puritanpresbyterian@...> wrote:

          Thanks Cheryl.  I was thinking along the same lines as far as the religious of then vs. the fashion statement of today. "Henna designs" what's that?  I too would worry about the other side effects plus the aging factor and the tattoo sagging into something less than appealing.

             I recently went to the 1st ever largest display of pre-Columbian Mexica (a.k.a. Aztec)museum artifacts outside of Mexico at the Goggeheim (spell?) Museum and I was facinated at their jewlery (that which escaped the gold-mongering Spainards), and their lip-plugs, wow, those look awesome, but I would get freakish looks if I donned one of those on today, unless of course I was around those Gothic dressing peoples running around nowadays!

          Thanks,

          Edgar

          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Cheryl"
          <cherylgrenon@l...> wrote:
          > Dear Edgar,
          >
          > This is just my opinion, but it appears to me that the tatooing being mentioned in the OT passages seem to have some sort of religious connotations to them.  I therefore think it now falls in the realm of Christian liberty since many people consider it just a form of body art like permanent makeup or henna designs.  However, I would not get one myself.  I don't relish the thought of what a beautiful rose turning into a withered rose on my body as I age. 
          There is also the issue of heavy metal intoxication from some of the dyes used for tatooing, allergic reaction and scars from it, and just plain getting sick of the design after a while.   I am thinking about a nose stud though.... :oP
          >
          > Cheryl
          >
          >
          >   ----- Original Message -----
          >   From: Edgar A. Ibarra Jr.
          >   To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
          >   Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 3:02 PM
          >   Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Tattoos
          >
          >   In the Word of God, our LORD speaks that the Israelites were not to tattoo their body among other things that the surrounding heathens did.  I have met Christians in the past, that got tattoos, AFTER, they were professing Christians.  Most with Scripture verses and others with those tribal/pict style tattoos.
          >
          >   How would you all look at this?  Is it a case of Christian liberty (as long as they do it moderately and modestly) or is it a moral issue and therefore sinful or not?
          >
          >  Just curious about this one, I guess it would be on par with women and make-up, but then maybe not?
          >
          >   Tattooless (even though I was a Marine),
          >
          >   Edgar
          >

          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com

        • Larry Bump
          ... From: Jasper ... interpretation and application (that the referenced tattooing was for religious purposes) does not apply to the
          Message 4 of 12 , Mar 2, 2005
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Jasper" <jasperh98@...>
            >
            > Folks, perhaps a brief explanation would be provided on why this same
            interpretation and application (that the referenced tattooing was for
            religious purposes) does not apply to the issue of images of God (that the
            referenced images were for worship purposes). Thank you for your
            helpfulness.

            That one is easy.

            Any image of man, creatures, or creation may be interacted with at any level
            below worship without sin. Hence, images of created beings or things are
            not forbidden.

            Interacting with anything purporting to be God or a visual representation of
            God would either inspire faulty worship (violation of the Second
            Commandment) or they would not. If they did not, Man would be interacting
            with God in a non-worshipful way, ie blasphemously denying His holiness and
            majesty; a violation of the First Commandment.

            Larry



            --
            No virus found in this outgoing message.
            Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
            Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 3/1/2005
          • Jasper
            Mr. Bump, thank you for replying. I think the first and second commandments are given as: “Thou shalt have none other gods before me. Thou shalt not make
            Message 5 of 12 , Mar 2, 2005
              Mr. Bump, thank you for replying.  I think the first and second commandments are given as:
               

              Thou shalt have none other gods before me.

              Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:

              Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God��   Deut. 5:7-9

               
              Please bear with me a bit here  -  I do not mean to be contentious.  First, I am somewhat surprised that you say "images of created beings or things are not forbidden".  That is not what I expected to read and I wonder if the rest of the group here agrees with you?
               
              Secondly,  when you say "Man would be interacting with God in a non-worshipful way", I appreciate the sensitivity to that issue that you display.  I will give this more consideration.
               
              Thirdly, on the same train of thought, you seem to be saying that in the case where "Interacting with anything purporting to be God or a visual representation of God" does not inspire faulty worship, then "Man would be interacting with God in a non-worshipful way, ie blasphemously denying His holiness and majesty".  I understand the first part to be describing a false god, but the continuation in the second part says that it actually is God.  Am I just failing to get your meaning here?  help, please.
               
              Thank you for allowing me to pose these few questions.
               
              Jasper
               


              Larry Bump <lbump@...> wrote:


              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Jasper" <jasperh98@...>
              >
              > Folks, perhaps a brief explanation would be provided on why this same interpretation and application (that the referenced tattooing was for religious purposes) does not apply to the issue of images of God (that the referenced images were for worship purposes).   Thank you for your helpfulness.


              That one is easy.

              Any image of man, creatures, or creation may be interacted with at any level below worship without sin.  Hence, images of created beings or things are not forbidden.

              Interacting with anything purporting to be God or a visual representation of God would either inspire faulty worship (violation of the Second Commandment) or they would not.  If they did not, Man would be interacting with God in a  non-worshipful way, ie blasphemously denying His holiness and majesty; a violation of the First Commandment.

              Larry

              --


              Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
              Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
            • Larry Bump
              ... The word images means any picture or sculpture. Images themselves are not forbidden, you have them in your home all over the place. The word in
              Message 6 of 12 , Mar 2, 2005
                Jasper wrote:

                > Please bear with me a bit here - I do not mean to be contentious.
                > First, I am somewhat surprised that you say "images of created beings or
                > things are not forbidden". That is not what I expected to read and I
                > wonder if the rest of the group here agrees with you?

                The word "images" means any picture or sculpture. Images themselves are
                not forbidden, you have them in your home all over the place.
                The word in scripture does *not* carry the meaning "religious icon".

                Unless one means to say that all photography and/or drawing of living
                beings is forbidden, images per se are allowable.

                > Thirdly, on the same train of thought, you seem to be saying that in the
                > case where "Interacting with anything purporting to be God or a visual
                > representation of God" does not inspire faulty worship, then "Man would
                > be interacting with God in a non-worshipful way, ie blasphemously
                > denying His holiness and majesty". I understand the first part to be
                > describing a false god, but the continuation in the second part says
                > that it actually is God. Am I just failing to get your meaning here?
                > help, please.


                Something that represents God *in se* would need to be representative of
                God's holiness and righteousness. If I interact with something that
                *is* God in any meaningful manner without giving the honor due to God I
                would be treating it/Him blasphemously.

                The point is that a picture "of God" either is, or is not a
                representation of God. Sounds like a tautology, but it's not. if it
                is, and I treat it non-Godly, I disrespect God by withholding His due.
                if I treat it Godly, I violate the second commandment.

                The reality of the issue is that nothing can really represent God, so if
                you say something *does*, you have lied, and about Him. Blasphemy.

                Seriously, can you imagine seeing a picture of God (in truth) that would
                *not* inspire worship? Can't be avoided, but must not be done. That's
                why an image of God is absolutely forbidden.
                If the calf did represent Yahweh, then the people would *have* to bow
                before it. The calf was meant to represent Elohim, but that is forbidden.

                Anyway, I believe that there is a reason that jesus lived before
                photography, and in a culture that did not do portraits. and, this is
                why the Shroud of Turin, in my opinion, cannot be the true shroud, with
                true marks.

                Hope this helps; I am rambling a little.

                Larry
              • gmw
                ... First, I am somewhat surprised that you say images of created beings or things are not forbidden . That is not what I expected to read and I wonder if
                Message 7 of 12 , Mar 2, 2005
                  --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, Jasper
                  <jasperh98@y...> wrote:
                  > Please bear with me a bit here - I do not mean to be contentious.
                  First, I am somewhat surprised that you say "images of created beings
                  or things are not forbidden". That is not what I expected to read and
                  I wonder if the rest of the group here agrees with you?
                  >

                  Heidelberg Catechism --
                  Q97: May we not make any image at all?

                  A97: God may not and cannot be imaged in any way; as for creatures,
                  though they may indeed be imaged, yet God forbids the making or
                  keeping of any likeness of them, either to worship them or to serve
                  God by them.[1]

                  1. Exod. 23:24-25; 34:13-14; Deut. 7:5; 12:3; 16:22; II Kings 18:4;
                  John 1:18

                  gmw.
                • Larry Bump
                  ... From: gmw ... Context and definitions, context and definitions. What cognitive load does the word images have in what
                  Message 8 of 12 , Mar 2, 2005
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "gmw" <raging.calvinist@...>> >
                    >
                    > Heidelberg Catechism --
                    > Q97: May we not make any image at all?
                    >
                    > A97: God may not and cannot be imaged in any way; as for creatures,
                    > though they may indeed be imaged, yet God forbids the making or
                    > keeping of any likeness of them, either to worship them or to serve
                    > God by them.[1]

                    Context and definitions, context and definitions.
                    What cognitive load does the word "images" have in what I wrote, and how
                    does that relate to the meaning of the word as used by Heidelberg?
                    The place I was quoted was referring to "images", ie, pictures and
                    sculptures, of all sorts and in all contexts.

                    Larry



                    --
                    No virus found in this outgoing message.
                    Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                    Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 3/1/2005
                  • Jasper
                    Larry Bump wrote: Hope this helps; I am rambling a little. Yes, you have helped. Thank you kind sir. J Larry Bump
                    Message 9 of 12 , Mar 3, 2005
                      Larry Bump <lbump@...> wrote:
                      Hope this helps; I am rambling a little.

                       
                      Yes, you have helped.   Thank you kind sir.
                       
                      J
                       
                       

                      Larry Bump <lbump@...> wrote:


                      Jasper wrote:

                      > Please bear with me a bit here  -  I do not mean to be contentious.  First, I am somewhat surprised that you say "images of created beings or things are not forbidden".  That is not what I expected to read and I wonder if the rest of the group here agrees with you?

                      The word "images" means any picture or sculpture.  Images themselves are not forbidden, you have them in your home all over the place.   The word in scripture does *not* carry the meaning "religious icon".

                      Unless one means to say that all photography and/or drawing of living beings is forbidden, images per se are allowable.

                      > Thirdly, on the same train of thought, you seem to be saying that in the case where "Interacting with anything purporting to be God or a visual representation of God" does not inspire faulty worship, then "Man would be interacting with God in a non-worshipful way, ie blasphemously denying His holiness and majesty".  I understand the first part to be describing a false god, but the continuation in the second part says 
                      that it actually is God.  Am I just failing to get your meaning here?  help, please.


                      Something that represents God *in se* would need to be representative of God's holiness and righteousness.  If I interact with something that *is* God in any meaningful manner without giving the honor due to God I would be treating it/Him blasphemously.

                      The point is that a picture "of God" either is, or is not a
                      representation of God.  Sounds like a tautology, but it's not.  if it is, and I treat it non-Godly, I disrespect God by withholding His due.  if I treat it Godly, I violate the second commandment.

                      The reality of the issue is that nothing can really represent God, so if you say something *does*, you have lied, and about Him.  Blasphemy.

                      Seriously, can you imagine seeing a picture of God (in truth) that would *not* inspire worship?  Can't be avoided, but must not be done.  That's why an image of God is absolutely forbidden.
                      If the calf did represent Yahweh, then the people would *have* to bow before it.  The calf was meant to represent Elohim, but that is forbidden.

                      Anyway, I believe that there is a reason that jesus lived before photography, and in a culture that did not do portraits.  and, this is why the Shroud of Turin, in my opinion, cannot be the true shroud, with true marks.

                      Hope this helps; I am rambling a little.

                      Larry

                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                      http://mail.yahoo.com

                    • gmw
                      Um, yes. I was using the Heidelberg to explain what I thought you were saying. gmw.
                      Message 10 of 12 , Mar 3, 2005
                        Um, yes. I was using the Heidelberg to explain what I thought you were
                        saying.

                        gmw.

                        Larry Bump wrote:

                        >
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: "gmw" <raging.calvinist@...>> >
                        > >
                        > > Heidelberg Catechism --
                        > > Q97: May we not make any image at all?
                        > >
                        > > A97: God may not and cannot be imaged in any way; as for creatures,
                        > > though they may indeed be imaged, yet God forbids the making or
                        > > keeping of any likeness of them, either to worship them or to serve
                        > > God by them.[1]
                        >
                        > Context and definitions, context and definitions.
                        > What cognitive load does the word "images" have in what I wrote, and how
                        > does that relate to the meaning of the word as used by Heidelberg?
                        > The place I was quoted was referring to "images", ie, pictures and
                        > sculptures, of all sorts and in all contexts.
                        >
                        > Larry
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --
                        > No virus found in this outgoing message.
                        > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                        > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 3/1/2005
                        >
                        >
                        > *Yahoo! Groups Sponsor*
                        > ADVERTISEMENT
                        > click here
                        > <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129b1dpgv/M=298184.6018725.7038619.3001176/D=groups/S=1706113926:HM/EXP=1109909984/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075>
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        > *Yahoo! Groups Links*
                        >
                        > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/covenantedreformationclub/
                        >
                        > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        > <mailto:covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                        >
                        > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                        > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
                        >
                        >
                      • Larry Bump
                        ... From: gmw ... Oh, OK. ;-) I will admit that I do have my dense moments. More frequently sometimes than others. Larry --
                        Message 11 of 12 , Mar 3, 2005
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "gmw" <raging.calvinist@...>
                          >
                          > Um, yes. I was using the Heidelberg to explain what I thought you were
                          > saying.

                          Oh, OK.
                          ;-)

                          I will admit that I do have my dense moments. More frequently sometimes
                          than others.
                          Larry



                          --
                          No virus found in this outgoing message.
                          Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
                          Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.0 - Release Date: 3/2/2005
                        • gmw
                          ... Don t worry about it. Unfortunately, this is a problem with a forum like this --- we read things and aren t sure how to take them, or even what they mean
                          Message 12 of 12 , Mar 4, 2005
                            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Bump"
                            <lbump@b...> wrote:

                            > Oh, OK.
                            > ;-)
                            >
                            > I will admit that I do have my dense moments. More frequently sometimes
                            > than others.

                            Don't worry about it. Unfortunately, this is a problem with a forum
                            like this --- we read things and aren't sure how to take them, or even
                            what they mean sometimes! Let's all be quick to view each other in
                            charity.

                            BTW, I think you guys did a bang up job in that last thread about the
                            differences between denominations -- that had all the workings of an
                            ugly fight, but it didn't turn out that way. Way to go, folks.

                            gmw.
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.