|| Replies ||

User	XmaryjaneX | 2007-02-14 |
Subject	to: alteredlife
Message	yes i do. give me your email address and i will send you a pic. :P symbolic for a lot of things eh? like? oh wait, wait i studied that in art class........... yes i think tatoos are more personal then jewlrey. but it, like i said, depends on the individual. i have a black rose necklace with the a dimond in the middle that my grandmother gave me so that’s pretty personal. the tiger, i just like tigers it is symbolic, but i’d rather not say that’s way too personal. but yeah i agree. :P

User	dismentled | 2007-02-13 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Guys like getting naked girls on their arms cause it makes it easier to masterbate, you already got your material handy.

User	alteredlife | 2007-02-12 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I have no idea. I wouldn’t. Probably the same guys who get skulls too.

User	GiveMeTheGun | 2007-02-12 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Why do some guys like tattooing a naked girl on their body?

User	alteredlife | 2007-02-12 |
Subject	untitled
Message	How about a combo shocker: a big fat swastika on the forehead with the caption "I love Osama" below it? As a sidenote, ever hear about the guy who tattooed his forehead in the mirror? Yep, it came out backwards... which would be great if you see him in your rear view mirror I guess...

User	Blue Monk | 2007-02-12 |
Subject	untitled
Message	If someone’s looking for shock effect, why not get the big triple sixes across the brow? That would freak out a few people!

User	alteredlife | 2007-02-11 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I only have one, so there’ll be no chance of tattoos muddling together. It’s in colour too, which can be easily retouched at any time (I know the tattooist personally, which helps).

User	mae | 2007-02-11 |
Subject	untitled
Message	The problem with tattoos, alteredlife, as opposed to jewelry, is that over time, they fade and kind of muddle together. My father was another drunken sailor who came home with a tattoo. He had his ship’s name with a picture of a ship on the bounding main, plus a little sailor boy on the other arm. Both forearms were ’decorated’. (He must have been completely snockered!) By the time he died some 60 years later, all his tatoos were more or less black blobs on his arms. My siblings and I knew what they said, but our children had no idea. mae

User	Blue Monk | 2007-02-10 |
Subject	untitled
Message	The real problem is that alcohol mixes all too easily with just about everything, except for brain cells that is. They tend to curd, which in some cases may actually be an improvement! Do the fake, wash off kind of tattoos count?

User	alteredlife | 2007-02-09 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Haha, bloody sailors lol. I have a friend whose dad used to be one... the stories he’d come out with would make the most hard-bitten blush, I swear. I don’t think alcohol and tattoos mix... I don’t think alcohol mixes with anything actually lol.

User	Blue Monk | 2007-02-09 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I’m an ex-sailor who also had several friends who were marines. In those days it seems like when we were off duty we were usually in the process of drinking a lot, so perhaps it was just a coincidence that was the state of mind when a tattoo suddenly showed up.

User	alteredlife | 2007-02-09 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Oh, just saw your post Mary Jane, oops. A white tiger sounds cool... got it drawn up yet? I have a flaming yin-yang on my right shoulder--red flames and blue water, symbolic, of well, a lot of things. Don’t you think tattoos are much like jewellery, except far more personal because you can’t take it off? I’d never think about getting it removed, like some who do years later who regretted it. But then, you’d have to be an idiot to tattoo a girl/boyfriend’s name like some only to break up with them later on (as an example). Thoughts?

User	alteredlife | 2007-02-09 |
Subject	untitled
Message	So, how come this thread isn’t about tattoos anymore and is about *gasp, surprise* religion again, with no mention of how it applies (or not) to tattooing? Hrm. Oh, and Blue Monk: my tattoo was never a statement for anyone else. In fact, it’s where it’s not usually visible. Skin is parchment, and something well-considered and designed is just as beautiful as any other art (as opposed to a drunken afterthought like you were implying). That’s my two cents anyway.

User	XmaryjaneX | 2007-02-07 |
Subject	untitled
Message	meh, i for one, just want a white tiger on my right shoulder. it would be hipocritical for me to say it’s wrong. So, i won’t. i will say, however, it depends on the beliefs of the individual. and just because your parents say that God said it wasn’t right that doesn’t mean it’s true. you should find it out for yourself. To be honest, I think if it was truly that big of a deal; then it would be one of the ten commandments. and as far as i know, its not.

User	Blue Monk | 2007-02-07 |
Subject	untitled
Message	One of the chief battles of the early church was the fact that it consisted of both Jews and Gentiles. Old ways are sometimes hard to change and when Paul refers to "the law", it is the Jewish doctrines he refers to which he knows if allowed to take hold would certainly inhibit the growth of and perhaps eventually distroy the church. http://www.refbaptist.com/sermon94.htm (The "no tattoos" bit is part of that old "law") We still are faced with "Judizers" of one form or another in many churches. With regards to what amounts to "faith", conviction by the Holy Spirit will tell you just how pleased God is (or is not) with your actions. The "fruits of the Spirit" should be self-evident. “But the Fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.” Galatians 5:22-23 http://fruityspirit.com/

User	Chell | 2007-02-07 |
Subject	untitled
Message	"Whosoever believeth in me shall not perish, but have everlasting life." That’s good to know. It actually makes sense. I mean if our actions (works) decided if we were going to heaven or not, we’d all be burning in hell. No one could do enough good to earn their way, and since even the smallest sin is abhorrent in God’s eyes it makes sense that grace is the only way. It’s a relief to know that our works hold no bearing on our entrance to heaven. I guess I felt that works were of some importance because I a hard time swallowing the fact that people like Jeffrey Dahmer, David Berkowitz, Charles Denton "Tex" Watson, and Robert L. Yates, Jr. were really going to live forever in God’s great heaven. (All of them found God, accepted Jesus’ sacrifice, and were baptized while on death row.) If all we have to do is believe on Christ, I bet there will be lots of murderers, rapists, and pedophiles who actually make it to heaven. It’s also a relief because I have a friend who loves Christ, has accepted Him as Lord and Savior, believes whole-heartedly in the sacrifice, and happens to be homosexual. I’m sure he’ll be comforted knowing that the gift of grace covers every sin. So, if our actions don’t matter, then it doesn’t matter which church we attend, what company we keep, whether we do good works, or even what sins we commit- as long as we accept Jesus’ gift of salvation….right?

User	Rokhal | 2007-02-06 |
Subject	untitled
Message	*Paul’s point is that we should NOT . . . Brain fart.

User	Rokhal | 2007-02-06 |
Subject	untitled
Message	"Whosoever believeth in me shall not perish, but have everlasting life." ~~~~~Jesus Paul’s point is that we should do good works out of fear or pride in our own accomplishments. Giving a dollar to the homeless guy because it makes us feel proud of how nice we are is not going to make God very happy. So, the conflict doesn’t seem as big as you seem to be saying. It’s not a case of "Jesus or Paul."

User	Chell | 2007-02-06 |
Subject	untitled
Message	**Quoting Thomas Jefferson on correct morality?** Did I quote Thomas Jefferson on issues of morality? Or did I use his quote to introduce some of the differences between Pauline doctrine and Jesus’ teachings? Differences that I have noticed- not Jefferson. **You can feed the poor all you want and it will not get you into heaven (filthy rags).** You’re right- good works alone will not get you through those great gates. According to Paul "a man is justified by faith APART from observing the law." So, there is no need to be good, follow the law, forgive those who trespass against us, or help anyone else- as long as you believe in the atonement of sins through the sacrifice of Jesus. You mentioned the sheep and the goats- one of my favorite of Jesus’ parables. It mentions that Jesus will separate the sheep (his followers) from the goats (those who are not his followers). To the sheep Jesus will say, “’Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ When the righteous say, “When did we do these things for you?” the answer will be, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” To the goats, Jesus will say, “’Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ "They also will answer, ’Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ "He will reply, ’I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." According to Paul salvation is through grace, not works. (He re-iterates this concept over 15 times in the New Testament.) According to Jesus, those who will receive their inheritance will be those who do good works as well as accept his gift of redemption- those who feed the hungry (no mention of whether they’re willing to work or not), give the thirsty something to drink, invite strangers into their home, clothe those that need clothing, and visit those in prison. Seeing as how Jesus and Paul are in conflict on this very important point, who should we listen to?

User	mae | 2007-02-06 |
Subject	untitled
Message	*Paul was a great chameleon. He even states this in 1 Corinthians 9:19-21 “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.”* When you speak to children, you speak in simple words and sentences so that they can understand; when you speak to educated adults, you use appropriate language; when you speak to those who are uneducated, you use different language. When Paul says he became like a Jew to win the Jews, he did not mean he was changing his teachings but his methods in order to be understood. The same for his comment about being under the law, etc. Quoting Thomas Jefferson as an authority on Paul is far worse than my relying on Acts. At least Luke was there! Thomas Jefferson formed his religious beliefs around those of Joseph Priestly, a Unitarian minister. In doing so, Jefferson rejected many of the basic tenets of Christianity (the Virgin birth, miracles, diety of Jesus, and others). If you don’t want to use the Acts of the Apostles (though it has been upheld as a history of the church), then at least find someone to quote who isn’t so far off the mark. The quotes you gave from Jefferson are contrary to the accepted views of Paul’s teachings. They ignore the things that Paul said over and over and over again in his epistles. Rather than relying on the reasonings of someone who trusted his own logic over just about everything, why not look to the body of writings from Paul himself. If Jefferson interprets one statement to mean one thing, but that one thing cannot be supported by other statements in Paul’s teachings, then it is probable that there is a misinterpretation, either by Jefferson or the person quoting him. *Ironically, Paul is the one who asserts that the Law of Moses is no longer operational,* When Paul speaks of no longer being under the law, he is talking about its condemnation. He very clearly says this in several of his epistles. He does not reject the law, but he does reject its condemnation for the followers of Christ because their sins have been forgiven and the penalty (condemnation) was paid by Christ. This is true whether the sin is homosexuality, adultery, theft or whatever. *There is nothing in the Gospels to suggest that Jesus was uncircumcised or rejected the practice. Genesis 17:9-14 makes it clear that circumcision was intended by God to be practiced forever and that those Jews who abandon the practice shall be cut off. Paul dismisses all this (despite the protests of the disciples who actually knew Jesus) and declares circumcision unnecessary (Romans 2:25-29). Paul says that circumcision is unnecessary for Gentiles. He is addressing Jews who are relying on their physical circumcision for salvation, rather than having a ’circumcision of the heart’ (or being set apart by God). He does not dismiss the practice of circumcision for the Jews but argues that it should be viewed properly. Circumcision was given to the Jews by God so that they and others would know that the Jews belonged to God. That was all it was. These Jews were trying to make it more. *Jesus described in Matt. 25:31-45 the final judgment as being based solely and entirely on behavioral responses to internalized compassion This is completely incorrect and ignores other teachings of Jesus. John 14:6 Jesus says "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well." Later, in 15:8 he says "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me, you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers." This is where it talks of our works. If we remain in him, we will, AS A CONSEQUENCE AND AS EVIDENCE, obey his commands and teachings and act with love and compassion toward our fellow human beings. Such works are not necessary for our salvation, but our belief in Jesus Christ and that alone is what brings us salvation. *I was trying to say that we do not have the right to use ‘discernment’ as justification for ostracizing a sinner from our churches, our job force, our society. And exactly who was using discernment to ostracize someone? The only comment made by anyone other than you concerning a child molestor was that we wouldn’t want them to watch our children. No one said anything about not allowing them to attend our church or anything else. Your statements very clearly implied that we were judging child molestors by protecting our children. By your statements to us, Chell, you were, in fact, imparting judgement on our motives and practices, when in fact, you were unaware of those motives and practices. *How does “accepting the particular realities of each sin” not fit the description of judging? You’re forming an opinion about a person based on a past situation or an event and consciously (cognitively) drawing a conclusion or a decision about that person. Call it what you want, but it’s a judgment call.* This was addressed to me. You were even more straightforward with cabbalistic. mae