At Chicago Tattoo & Piercing Co., which has been in business in that city since 1973, the employees have a name for tattoos on the hands, neck and face. ‚ÄúWe call them job stoppers,‚ÄĚ said Joel Jose Molina, a tattoo artist at the shop. ‚ÄúYour possibilities are cut down. You‚Äôre going to be working at the Trader Joe‚Äôs putting groceries away or working that bar job.‚ÄĚ
Or then again, you might be cutting platinum albums and performing at this year‚Äôs Lollapalooza Festival, like Post Malone. Or broadcasting your amazing pop star life to your 101 million Instagram followers, like Justin Bieber.
Both musicians have tattoos on their faces, a once taboo area to ink....
Dr Tim Wrote: "...and as my old Appalachian granny used to say, "That's all a feller can do."
I think you changed up granny's comment there a bit, Dr Tim. I understand why, but I'm thinking it was more like, "That's all the little feller can do", as your kin looked on in horror to see you still crawling and wanting to be picked up at 17yrs old.
Carl, we've all made mistakes, and many of mine were far more serious than getting a tattoo. Sounds like you're doing your best to correct yours, and as my old Appalachian granny used to say, "That's all a feller can do."
Thanks Nate,they aren't a stumbling block. I think long and hard about things like this. I rushed into them when I was younger. I now want them covered in something "religious" if you know what I mean. My skull and bat were covered by a Calvary scene
I know I'll get comments on this but I'm getting another couple of tattoos,one is going to cover up an old one of the grim reaper and one which has a swear word. The new one will probably be a lion of Judah or something similar
You didn't respond to the point I made about 1 Cor. 8,
Hello Mike, would you like to talk about 1 Corinthians 8? That is not a bad idea. I tell you what, you give me your take on what it is saying, and show me where it says that we cannot define all things as coming from either God or Satan, and are either good or bad. And then I will give you my opinion. It is virtually impossible, given the number of characters, to talk about more than one thing at a time, which is why I hadn't answered before. Thank you.
John UK, I appreciate your candor and willingness to dialogue (though I know it is late for you, haha!). I am one of those professing Christians that say rock music CAN be fine for Christians, provided that it does not provoke them to sin. The problem here, most respectfully, is that YOU say it is of the devil; but where does the Scripture say it? You didn't respond to the point I made about 1 Cor. 8, and I would also like to ask what you think about what we can clearly define as worldliness? I do believe that Scripture does give clear parameters as to what defines worldliness, and if you could please show me where a certain style of music is declared devilish or somehow inherently worldly? Where do we draw the line then? Only Scottish tunes? Or American tunes? Or what exactly? Not that I want this to get away from the original topic of tattoos, but I think you get my point. Thanks again brother, and have a good night!
Sorry to butt in, but when scripture isn't all that clear and consise on certain do's and dont's, as in, "Do we? Can we? Should we?", I always ask myself if I could honestly imagine Jesus doing whatever it is. I ask myself if I can imagine Him doing the thing in question back then, and also ask myself if I can imagine Him doing that thing, present day, if He were to come for a visit. In this particular case, can I imagine Christ walking into a tatoo parlor, and getting inked up? I can't.
While scripture may not be clear, I can't imagine Him doing it, and I'm to emulate Him as my example in all things.
A lot of professing Christians say that rock music is fine for Christians to play and sing. Whereas I say it is of the devil.
When the Lord saved me, he brought me out of the kingdom of darkness and translated me into the kingdom of his dear Son. It is a different kingdom to that of the world. In God's kingdom there is no worldliness, because "they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world", said Jesus.
If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
I believe the only marks in heaven will be the nailprints in the hands and feet of the Lamb of God.
Well Mike, I'm giving you my opinion and I am sticking to it. Now it is late here and I must turn in.
John UK wrote: Hi Mike NC, No you assumed wrongly, and I agree with you. In situations like this it may even be necessary to apply sanctified common sense, as well as compile a whole plethora of scriptures which speak to what we are to do with our body, which is after all, the temple of the Holy Spirit. What we have to decide is whether or not this thing is of the world, or is it of God? I say that it is not only of the world and not of God, but that it is of the devil. There is no getting away from it. Everything is either of the flesh or the Spirit. And I believe this is one the clear-cut ones.
Sorry for the wrong assumption, friend, but I have to respectively disagree. I cannot find any clear-cut Scriptural evidence that condemns fashionable body marking that is not promoting or celebrating the worship of false deities or anything of the like. I myself don't have a tattoo, nor would I get one, but the issue has more to do with financial stewardship. I really think that to say a skin marking is of the devil I think is way too far a statement to make, most respectfully. Also, when you say everything is of the flesh or of the Spirit, then how should we understand Paul in 1 Cor. 8? For some it's sin, and others it is not; how does that fit your pa
No you assumed wrongly, and I agree with you. In situations like this it may even be necessary to apply sanctified common sense, as well as compile a whole plethora of scriptures which speak to what we are to do with our body, which is after all, the temple of the Holy Spirit.
What we have to decide is whether or not this thing is of the world, or is it of God? I say that it is not only of the world and not of God, but that it is of the devil.
There is no getting away from it. Everything is either of the flesh or the Spirit. And I believe this is one the clear-cut ones.
JohnUK, you cited me speaking of Leviticus in support of opposing the modern practice of tattooing, so I just assumed that your question was couched in the context of the Levitical injunction against marking oneself for the dead. My response was much more nuanced than a just, ‚ÄúYes, God does,‚ÄĚ or a ‚ÄúNo, God doesn‚Äôt,‚ÄĚ for I do not believe that the Bible explicitly speaks to the modern-day practice of fashionable tattooing per se any more than the Bible explicitly speaking of 21st Century democratic governments. That being said, we cannot then conclude that the Bible is silent concerning the issue of tattooing, because as I stated in my reply, God does speak an awful lot about vanity, pride, and proper stewardship of monetary resources, all issues that touch on the present-day practice of tattooing. This is how I think the subject needs to be approached, NOT by ripping Leviticus 19:28 out of its original context and applying it unethically to present day practices. Something might preach well enough, but its biblical support may be lacking. Does this answer your question?
Mike wrote: John UK, God is concerned with where our hearts are at. If we get a tattoo because of pride, vanity ,or any other heart sin, then of course he‚Äôs not ‚Äúok‚ÄĚ with it, just as He is not OK with mere religious externalism and vain traditions of men. But to equate the Levitical injunction against marking one for the dead with getting someone's name or a piece of art on their skin is a leap that is exegetically unallowable.
Mike NC, I never mentioned the Levitical injunction.
ken, the Law in its ritual and ceremonial aspects are fulfilled in Christ, while the moral thrust and principle of the law remain for all time (if one makes the claim that the Law is still in effect the same way it was for OT Israel, then why do we no longer sacrifice animals? We need to remember that our Bible is a progressive revealing of truth over time, culminating in Jesus Christ, the fulfillment of the Law for all who believe). John UK, God is concerned with where our hearts are at. If we get a tattoo because of pride, vanity ,or any other heart sin, then of course he‚Äôs not ‚Äúok‚ÄĚ with it, just as He is not OK with mere religious externalism and vain traditions of men. But to equate the Levitical injunction against marking one for the dead with getting someone's name or a piece of art on their skin is a leap that is exegetically unallowable. WayneRap, you know what I mean about modern practice, so I don‚Äôt appreciate the intellectual coyness. Once again, sexual immorality and sorcery are not only evil in principle, but are actually repeated in the NT in multiple places, so a little but of apples and oranges at play if you ask me. If not, then would you be ok with ham and shellfish, or perhaps mixing fabrics or trimming your beard? Btw, I haven't said that I am for tattoos.
While tattoos cannot be called a weightier matter of the Law, nonetheless, it does bespeak an attitude of vain self-advertisement which Christians should beware of. Preachers have not emphasized this side of it enough. "Hey, look at me!" seems to be the order of the day, explaining tee-shirts, bumper-stickers, Facebook, and other means of inflicting one's private opinions or interests on strangers. Surely the injunction of 1 Ti. 2:9 is applicable not just to women.
Churches have played their part by offering face-painting to children at social events, which may "soften them up" for tattooing later. Our appearance is a reflection of our inner attitudes.
Even policemen, in the US and UK at least, have tattoos now.