Body Piercing

[Bro. Curtis]

I do believe you are correct, mr Joshua.

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by Terry Herrington:
Post it,
Doesn't the Scripture say that, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" Co 11:14

Terry,

Lets be reasonable ok?

From 1 CO 11
1Co 11:13 Be judges yourselves of the question: does it seem right for a woman to take part in prayer unveiled?
1Co 11:14 Does it not seem natural to you that if a man has long hair, it is a cause of shame to him?
1Co 11:15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given to her for a covering.

Here are some questions you need to ask about these passages:

1. If long hair on men is wrong, so is women praying unveiled (which leads to women speaking out in church, attending church without a hat, wearing pants...etc..etc...etc)
2. How long is long? No really. To the military, long hair is longer than a friggin' finger nail. To american indians long hair may have been all the way to the ground. So, with unqualified subjective words such as "long", don't make snap judgments based upon culture.

As for my view on piercings and tattoos, well...just like most anything in this world, they can be good, bad or neutral. Good if they proclaim God and Jesus, bad if they are for some sort of satanic or cultic ritual or for rebellion, neutral if neither of these two reasons.

Lets take me for example. I am 25, just got married (if anyone even noticed, I have been away from the board for about 2 months. Got married in June and have been spending time with my wife since) and am a working professional also going to graduate school for a Master's in Computer Science. I also have a tattoo on my left shoulder. I like it. I got it when I was 22 (right when I graduated from college). I was a Christian then. Why did I get it? Because I wanted one. I like the way they look and I had a design I drew and really liked so I said "why not". My only regret about the tattoo is that it doesn't proclaim Jesus in anyway. Sure, since I drew it I can make up some story about it, but I won't because there truthfully isn't one. Though, my next tattoo will be all about Jesus. I am not sure what it will be just yet, but I have some ideas.

So, is my tattoo evil? I am sure some would say yes. I say no, and am more than confident God say's no as well. Though, I am absolutely sure God isn't pleased either because I could have gotten a 'Jesus' tattoo originally. Lesson learned.

In Christ,
jason

PS. Another example of how silly this stuff can get: I remember once someone told me that wearing jeans with holes in the knees was wrong. Why? Because I was trying to buy into subversive anti-cultural underground movement blah blah blah. Why did I do it? Because I was young and because I thought it was kinda cool. Stupid yes, wrong no.

PPS. Some links you might like on the subject.

Christian Tattoo Page

Tattoos by Hoss

[EDITED TO FIX ABOVE LINK]

[ August 13, 2002, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: jasonW* ]

 

[Terry_Herrington]

The Bible, in I Cor. 11:13-15 is talking about a woman wearing a veil over her head, not her face. The real Bible, which is the King James Version says,

13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
1 Cor 11:13-15

Just as men should have short hair, a woman should have long hair. I don’t know why God chose for it to be this way, but He did. Our job is to obey Him. Some say it is cultural; maybe so, maybe not. It is such a small thing to obey this simple rule, why not be on the safe side.

I’m older than you (twice as old according to your profile) and I remember when men started to wear long hair back in the 1960s. It was a sign of rebellion. Only rebels did so and everyone knew it. If you had long hair it was easy to fit into the rock n roll and drug culture. I’m not condemning men who have long hair; I’m simply saying that it would be far better to obey rather than to look for reasons to not obey.

We, at the church I attend, don’t have a ruler to measure people’s hair with. This subject is not even talked about. I would not break fellowship with a brother over it either, I just think we should try to obey God’s standards.

 

[clipper]

I must admit that this is a topic that I've not really heard debated before and that it has been interesting to see the different interpretations of scripture on it.
I have always been taught that as a Christian we should be more concerned about a person's heart than their exterior and as such that the presence or absence of body piercings or tatoos doesn't reflect their relationship with God. Perhaps this is an area where each individual should be led by God.
In terms of young persons choosing to get piercing and tatoos, it would probably be a good thing to ask them (in a relatively nonconfrontial way) why they want to do so. If it is to annoy their parents, it would be helpful to gently remind them that as a Christian it is important to honor their parents and if they are dead set on doing so that it would be better to defer it to when they are an adult. If it is because "everyone else is doing it," this situation might be a good opportunity to discuss peer pressure and the struggle between conforming to Christ or conforming to this world. If it is because they genuinely appreciate the way it looks, their parents have no objections to it, and they can afford to pay for it themselves, I would encourage them not to make a rash decision but that if they choose to pursue it further to choose an establishment that is reputable to minimize the risk of needle-born infections.

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by Terry Herrington:
Just as men should have short hair, a woman should have long hair. I don’t know why God chose for it to be this way, but He did. Our job is to obey Him. Some say it is cultural; maybe so, maybe not. It is such a small thing to obey this simple rule, why not be on the safe side.

I would agree, except if it is cultural. If it is a cultural thing, then, quite frankly, who cares?

I’m older than you (twice as old according to your profile) and I remember when men started to wear long hair back in the 1960s. It was a sign of rebellion. Only rebels did so and everyone knew it. If you had long hair it was easy to fit into the rock n roll and drug culture. I’m not condemning men who have long hair; I’m simply saying that it would be far better to obey rather than to look for reasons to not obey.

1. This was back in the '60s. What about back in colonial times? Did only rebels where long hair then? What about the middle ages? Jesus's time? And what about the place? If you go back through history, it is plainly obvious that long/short hair on men is all about the time and the place. In the '50s and '60s, only "rebels" wore long hair. Today, that is not the case and to have this attitude only perpetuates myths.

2. Why is it that people are always looking for reason's not to obey? Why can't it be searching for truth and finding it?

Here is soemthing to think about. My new wife's father is a Christian, has been for about 30 years. We recently had a conversation about giving gifts to other people. He said that giving gifts is selfish because it makes one feel better about themselves, like they are better and can give. I, of course, disagreed. What this shows is that people will see things THROUGH THEIR EYES. For him, giving could have been, and probably was, selfishly motivated. For me, it is not. I feel I have been blessed and try to give as much as possible. For him, the giving was impure and didn't mean anything except pride fluffing. So, is giving wrong? For him, it just might be because of the motivation.

Do you see the difference? Do you see where I am going with this?

In Christ,
jason

 

[Multimom]

The real Bible, which is the King James Version says,

I love this philosophy. This infers that there is some sort of divine impartation into this translation, when in all actuality it was written in the slang (or trash talk) of the time frame. While it is a decent translation there is no reason to view it as different or more holy than the translations of today which are at least written in the proper grammer of the day.

The old English we see in the King James translation was not the "proper" King's English, it was the slang vernacular of the age. There is nothing superior in its translation at all. And no reason to ascribe to it any superiority over any other current translation.

[ August 14, 2002, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: Multimom ]

 

[Brother Adam]

Multi-mom,

I've found that trying to convince someone not to hold to the KJVO position is like trying to knock a building over by banging your head into it. Similiar to trying to convince a unitarian universalist that Jesus is the only way to heaven

The real Bible? Try the original Hebrew and Greek texts

Bro. Adam

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Brother Adam:
Similiar to trying to convince a unitarian universalist that Jesus is the only way to heaven.

Not so fast! It can be done. I saw a unitarian reduced to a quivering wreck by a new Christian with very little Bible knowledge.

As for KJVO, just let it go. Just be happy that they're reading the Bible in the first place, even if it's not a translation you or I would prefer.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

But it is an ignorant comment. Makes the folks like me, who just prefer the KJV, look like militants, which I am not.

I really wish people wouldn't say things like that.

 

[Multimom]

I enjoyed the parallel to "convincing a uniterian about Jesus being the only way."

Makes sense. Truth is I said what I said to see if it would push any buttons.