Evidence for God from Science

Hey i'm thinking about tattoos, and just wanted to know if there was anything deceitful or bad about celtic crosses?

heres a cheesy pic:

http://www.crichtonmiller.com/Celtic%20Cross.htm

http://www.celtarts.com/celtic.htm

In those early days in England, there was another kind of witchcraft known as Druidism. The Druids were called “men of the oaks” and were a strange clan of men who dressed in white robes. The Druids worshipped Cernnunos, the “horned hunter of the night.“ Halloween was sacred to the Druids because their sun-god receded to the underworld on October 31st, which is why darkness increased and light decreased according to their reckoning.

As darkness set in on October 31st, the clan of Druids would put on their white robes and hoods. They would carry sickles and Celtic crosses as they began a torchlight procession. At the beginning of the procession, a male slave was killed and dragged by a rope fastened to his left ankle. The Druids would walk until they came to a house or a village where they shouted the equivalent of “trick or treat.” The treat was a slave girl or any female to be given to the Druids. If the people refused to a girl as a “treat”, blood was taken from the dead slave and used to draw a hexagram or six-pointed star on the door or wall of the village. Spirits of the “horned hunter of the night” were invoked by the Druids to kill someone in that house or village by fear that night.
http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org/tr ... act10.html


Celtic CROSS: The symbol for a cultural blend of medieval Catholicism and ancient Celtic traditions. Notice the similarity between the old Celtic cross and the cross designed by PBS (tax-funded Public Broadcasting in the U.S.) to represent Christianity (left side). Do you wonder why PBS would choose a similar cross (right side) to represent the Quartered Circle of the earth-centered religions of Aborigenes around the world?
http://www.crossroad.to/Books/symbols1.html


The so-called “Celtic Cross,” for instance, has been adopted by neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups. It consisted of a cross encompassed by a circle and is known to students of Norse mythology as “Odin's symbol.” Adolph Hitler adopted the Iron Cross in 1939 as a national symbol and superimposed the Nazi swastika in its center.
http://www.cjf.org/resources/Bible_Ques ... t2005.html

everytime i get exited about something looking cool, it ends up being a centerpiece for cults and devil worship lol. well i appreciate it J, helped alot . I guess the celtic cross tattoo is no bueno then lol.

cult, satanism, masonry, World order are full off signs. Christianity has one sign and that is the man Jesus Christ.

come on now, tatoo's in general are wrong... your permenitly putting something on your body that God didnt intend to be there... same with piercings, except piercings can close up and go away. tattoos are there to stay (unless you have alot of cash to get it removed). i understand that people get tat's to show passion or because it's just cool. i recommend getting a henna tattoo. it's a tattoo that lasts maybe a month if you take care if it... most people just buy the stuff and draw it on themselves. this way your not permenitly damaging your body, yet you can still show your passion for whatever you want. plus when i got one while i was in the desert, it freaked my family out when i got back home!!!

Iggy wrote:come on now, tatoo's in general are wrong... your permenitly putting something on your body that God didnt intend to be there... same with piercings, except piercings can close up and go away. tattoos are there to stay (unless you have alot of cash to get it removed). i understand that people get tat's to show passion or because it's just cool. i recommend getting a henna tattoo. it's a tattoo that lasts maybe a month if you take care if it... most people just buy the stuff and draw it on themselves. this way your not permenitly damaging your body, yet you can still show your passion for whatever you want. plus when i got one while i was in the desert, it freaked my family out when i got back home!!!

There is inherently nothing wrong with Tattoo's. The law in Leviticus was mainly because People would get Tat's to give Worship or honour to their Gods. I would never get one myself (because it is painful) but don't see a problem with a Fish or Cross Tattoo.

Iggy wrote:come on now, tatoo's in general are wrong... your permenitly putting something on your body that God didnt intend to be there...

...i recommend getting a henna tattoo. it's a tattoo that lasts maybe a month if you take care if it...

- Seems to be a bit of dodgy reasoning.

So I could get a henna tattoo, that looks exactly like a normal tattoo and keep replacing it when it comes off for the rest of my life and by your reasoning that wouldn't be a problem (or is there a time limit?)...

...What would be the difference of having a real tattoo?

And also, we continually put things on our body that God didn't intend to be there - clothes

Regards,

Blacknad.

Blacknad wrote:

Iggy wrote:come on now, tatoo's in general are wrong... your permenitly putting something on your body that God didnt intend to be there...

...i recommend getting a henna tattoo. it's a tattoo that lasts maybe a month if you take care if it...

- Seems to be a bit of dodgy reasoning.

So I could get a henna tattoo, that looks exactly like a normal tattoo and keep replacing it when it comes off for the rest of my life and by your reasoning that wouldn't be a problem (or is there a time limit?)...

...What would be the difference of having a real tattoo?

And also, we continually put things on our body that God didn't intend to be there - clothes

Regards,

Blacknad.

We did not have the Knowledge that we were Naked at that time either

The question for me would be whether it's dishonouring our bodies as temples of God. I personally see it as defacing God's property, or vandelizing. I don't want to be legalistic about it, but that's just how I've always seen it. I think we should respect the way God made us and not colour ourselves pretty. Maybe someday in the future I'll change my mind, though. I mean, I used to be pretty strict with myself regarding things like that.

I don't wear makeup unless it's desired of me for a wedding. For my sister's, which was this past New Year's Eve, I not only let her paint me up so that when I looked in the mirror I thought I looked like a pasty corpse at a wake, but I even let her dye my hair, a first for me. She had to put my makeup on, though, since I'm totally unexperienced at it and she's a cosmotologist. I hated wearing that gunk on my face, and I hated looking in the mirror and seeing myself wearing someone else's hair colour. It just wasn't the way God made me, and I don't like the thought of changing your appearance too much for vanity's sake.

Just last night I took the girls I nanny for to their school carnival, where everyone was getting their hair dyed and done up all funky, their faces painted, and fake tattoos put on. I'm undecided as to that stuff. It does encourage vanity, but isn't necessarily unhealthy, and could be just clean fun. I mean, what's the differene between painting your face and wearing a mask? The only difference is how close it is to your skin.

But decorating yourself as a more permanent thing? Permanently changing the colour of your skin? Why not do a Micheal Jackson thing if you choose, then? Or plastic surgery for vanitiy's sake? Even if it's not so much for vanity as fun or making a statement.

I got my ears pierced when I was thirteen because I wanted to be more mature and to wear pretty earrings. Well, I hardly wore anything after the initial large posts, and my ears have routinely kept closing in on me. When I do put earrings in again for special occassions out of respect for people's desires for decorum and formality, I have to repuncture one of the holes, though it's not always in exactly the same place. No, it doesn't bleed, but the skin does have to be broken anew. Makes a nice "pop" sound!

So that's my undecisive "two cents," as bizzt likes to call it. Maybe it'll help people conteplate the issues for themselves, or maybe I'll get good responses that I can glean truth from for my own benefit.

Oh, and only a handful of years ago did I let myself use anything for my acne. I failed to see it as cleaning my skin, and saw it as a vanity issue. I wanted to be natural, (though with showering and deodorant, course,) because that's the way God made me. Oh, the comments I would've made here if I had the opportunity! I'm over that now, but am still unsure as to what's acceptable.

kateliz,

I really admire your stand on make-up and hair dye. This society is about little more than image these days and people need to make a stand.

I love it when I see real Christians taking God at his word when He says He looks on the inside.

I never wear clothes with labels of any kind - don't buy brand names etc.

I don't have TV so I can avoid adverts, the constant sex and damned celebrity.

Once again, I really admire your position on this for a young lady (if you don't mind the label).

But hey, I shouldn't worry about acne cream though

Regards,

Blacknad.

kateliz wrote:The question for me would be whether it's dishonouring our bodies as temples of God. I personally see it as defacing God's property, or vandelizing.

To say we as God's children are His property is completely un-Biblical.

God created us, He created our brains, He created our eyes, He created our bodies - and if you own a mirror, you care what you look like, whether you wear make up or not. Do you not buy clothes until your old clothes are unwearable or do you buy a nice skirt because it's pretty? Looks certainly aren't the be all and end all, but anyone who owns a mirror cares.

angelskates wrote:To say we as God's children are His property is completely un-Biblical.

1Co 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.


1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

1Co 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord:
Eph 2:22 In whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit.

God created us, He created our brains, He created our eyes, He created our bodies - and if you own a mirror, you care what you look like, whether you wear make up or not. Do you not buy clothes until your old clothes are unwearable or do you buy a nice skirt because it's pretty? Looks certainly aren't the be all and end all, but anyone who owns a mirror cares.

Mat 6:28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
Mat 6:29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
Mat 6:30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
Mat 6:31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
Mat 6:32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
Mat 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Your quotes don't counter-argue! It says nowhere in the Bible that we are God's PROPERTY! In fact it says just the opposite. Saying that our bodies are temples of God does not mean we are His PROPERTY, it means that He gave us these Earthly bodies and His Spirit can dwell within them and we should take care of them.

In another thread, I posted:

This type of understanding that people are just the property of God is really reflective of a modern capitalist economy where all physical beings are reduced to material worth whose sole value is derived from productive capacity (aka 'property').

But this type of understanding of creation is antithetical to biblical themes and messages. Consider:

"It will come about in that day," declares the LORD,"That you will call Me Ishi (husband), And will no longer call Me Baali (master/overlord/owner).
Hosea 2:16

And:

I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.
John15:15

In the Greek, the word for translated as 'servants' is δουλος (doulos) which is the same word for slave. Here, Jesus specifies what exactly is meant by δουλος, and that is one who isn't in intimate relationship with Him and is unaware of His full plan. So in the case of δουλος here, Jesus regarded this as typological of a hierarchical relationship which he effectively dismantled.

So according to this verse, Jesus unequivocally states we are not to regard ourselves as 'property', but as friends in intimate relation to Him.

Now, you could say that in the Hebrew Bible, the Isaelites were considered God's property and thus, God could do whatever God wanted. This actually is a common way for Christians to interpret the Hebrew Bible, but it wouldn't be accurate. The verse I cited from Hosea rather amply illustrates. Throughout scripture (both Hebrew Bible and the New Testament), the language of God's covenant with humanity is one of intimacy and filiation, most akin to marriage. This has always been the covenantal relationship desired by God.

As proof of this, you'll see that nowhere in the Hebrew Bible are people EVER referred to or spoken of as God's 'property'. And there's a reason for this. For one, 'property' cannot enter into a covenantal relationship as it possesses no authority on its own. Second, 'property' bears no responsibility or obligation to itself or others. 'Property' can be made to do things, but it can never be held morally liable for NOT doing things (since 'property' possesses no moral agency).

But clearly God entered into covenantal relationship with humanity from time of initial creation. And clearly as part of that covenantal relationship, humanity has always been held morally and spiritually responsible for its actions. So to me it's very clear God never regarded us, nor ever intended to regard us as His property.
___________________________________________________________

It is NATURAL to be physically attracted (which is not the same as lustful) to the physical appearance (the "outside") and natural to do things to change/dress up/dress down that appearance, God gave us that ability. As long as it is not made to be the only thing that is important, it's okay. God created physical attraction, it is a gift, an acknowledgement that something is good and appreciated.

An example is this. In order to take care of our hair (given to us by God), we wash it. That's part of looking after the "temple". But in order to LOOK ATTRACTIVE, we brush, comb, style it, have it cut, permed etc. Doing this is equal to colouring your hair. It's not permenant, yet it's also not how we were born. There's nothing at all wrong with styling or colouring your hair!

Tatoo wise, I fear pain - but I think they are okay, as long as it is chosen appropriately (not evil). In some cases (a cross/Christian fish) may be a great outreach tool, like wearing a cross, people may ask you about it (which is common with tatoos). It could be an opportunity to share! There in no such thing as a bad opportunity to share, all are good.

Quotes alone mean very little, you need to look at content and explanations.

If the scripture refered to us in the context of of being a slave or a bond-servant of God would you accept that as evidence of God viewing those whom Christ has purchased by His blood as analogous to property?

Of course, that situation exists, although it is counterintuitive to what prompted this discussion. It is in fact those whom God has redeemed by Christ's blood who are bought with a price and redeemed from slavery to sin into a new relationship with God where he elevates us above slave status to sons and more than that, heirs or joint-heirs with Christ.

The bottom line is that the progress and development of the argument is going to build upon your presuppositions. An Atheist position is going to argue with a bias that seeks to see God as anthropomorphised out of human systems of Justice and morality and thus seek to demonstrate inconsistencies by elevating that law above God Himself.

A theist is going to argue with a bias that sees God as the lawgiver and elevated above our understanding of that law (the paradox of the finite attempting to grasp the infinite) and there is little common ground that will come between the two positions.

As such, the only meaningful arguments are going to be those that attempt to show inconsistency within either syllogistic construct and if constructed properly there's not necessarily a definitive point to be made. It hinges upon which position best represents reality, and is therefore true in an absolute sense (the preference of the theist) or truer in the relative sense (the preference of the atheist or agnositic.)

THe bottom line is that while specific revelation does equate to revelation of the nature of God in the truest and most direct means that we have available, it would be a mistake to believe that it is a complete revelation of all that God is OR that even if it were that we have the capacities as finite creatures to grasp all that it is and means. We are thus reduced to analogies that inherently inadequate, but that we must resort to in order to provide a point of reference for us to understand as best we can.

The old illustration of 6 blind men feeling a elephant and giving their understandings of what they were experiencing respectively as a snake, a rope, a wall, a tree trunk etc holds true. All relevant as far as they go, but not the entire picture.

angelskates wrote:Your quotes don't counter-argue! It says nowhere in the Bible that we are God's PROPERTY! In fact it says just the opposite. Saying that our bodies are temples of God does not mean we are His PROPERTY, it means that He gave us these Earthly bodies and His Spirit can dwell within them and we should take care of them.

I don't see anywhere that IRQ used the word property.

I agree, I don't think God sees us a cattle or objects, but he does see us as children, 'His children' which carries with it ownership. My children belong to me and no one else.
God can and does according to His Will, not mine.

Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
So in this respect, yes , I see this as Him owning.

The scriptures presented by IRQ are hardly irrelevant nor are they out of context, they speak very well as to God's ownership.

1Co 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

angelskates wrote: In the Greek, the word for translated as 'servants' is δουλος (doulos) which is the same word for slave

I agree, we are His 'friends' but scripture also says we are His servants.
Rom 1:1
1Co 7:22
Gal 1:10
Col 4:7
Col 4:12
2Ti 2:24
Tit 1:1
Jam 1:1
2Pe 1:1
Jud 1:1
Rev 1:1
Rev 19:10
As you can see, we are both. These scriptures are not out of context by the way.

I do not condemn anyone who has a tattoo, but I would suggest to anyone who is contemplating getting one to do a little study on it before making your choice. There is the 'Under the Law' take on it but there is another side to this coin. Following is a link that expresses the other view for anyone who may be interested. LINK HERE