Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is that so Old Testament that modern Christians can ink away?

Where in the OT are tattoos even discussed?

Clear as day. Per Leviticus 19:28, “You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves.

This

I love how bible thumpers get tattoos of the cross but don't know the above is in the bible.

Christian here. I knew that was in the Bible.

Reformed Protestant Christians (my tradition) believe that when Jesus Christ came, lived a sinless life fully fulfilling God's entire law to ancient Israel, died, and was raised again that was that for the law. The old covenant between God and his people was finished, completed by Christ himself. Now there's a new covenant. Under that new covenant the ceremonial law (like that verse in Leviticus) and the civil law (all the rules governing the government of Israel) no longer apply. Since the moral law - which is best spelled out in the 10 commandments - existed in the covenants before the old covenant, then it still applies. But the rest of it doesn't.

Before mocking Christians, you should check to see if we've actually...thought about stuff. You do realize entire PhDs exist in theology, right?

NP. This. Jesus brought in a new covenant. He discouraged religious bean counting and emphasized just two OT rules: love God, and love your neighbor. In fact, he said to go beyond loving your neighbor and love your enemy too. He also broke other specific OT rules, for example re consorting with unclean people (tax collectors lol and prostitutes) and specifically said that dietary rules were unnecessary (“it doesn’t matter what goes in your mouth, it matters what comes out of it”). So Christians are adhering to Jesus’ message by not getting fussed about Leviticus’ rules about clothing or tattoos.

This is what gets me about Christians. They disregard all the facts pointing out the flaws and inconsistencies in the Bible, since the only way to overcome the cognitive dissonance is to revert to the "Jesus is love" idea. This is tantamount to saying that Santa is real because "Santa is charitable and generous" and only has one rule: naughty or nice.

The gospels are actually quite consistent and the message is much deeper than what you're pretending.

This is what gets me about anti-Christian trolls: they post uneducated nonsense about tattoos that they read in some atheist chat group. Then when that doesn't work, they massively oversimplify the gospels.

The gospels are only consistent because they plagiarized off each other = mark, then matthew and luke, then john. You are also ignoring the fact that the rest of the Bible is not consistent, and completely contradicts itself. This is what happens to a book that has multiple authors across different generations. Perhaps the theist troll should try to understand more facts.

No, scholars who adhere to the Q Source theory about the Gospels--which is hypothetical, anyway--don't claim that John was part of it. And positing a single source for the bones of a story (which imo has some logic) still doesn't explain why the gospels read so differently or why each includes some different sets of new but consistent facts--compare Matthew to Luke, for example. Also, no Christian alive has any problem with the New Testament contradicting the Old, because Jesus explicitly said he was contradicting the Old. The ignorance here is jaw-dropping.

Ignorance is believing a compilation of bronze-age fictional parables are real.

Ohh, good one, troll.

Be nice to the Christian. He can't help being gullible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is that so Old Testament that modern Christians can ink away?

Where in the OT are tattoos even discussed?

Clear as day. Per Leviticus 19:28, “You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves.

This

I love how bible thumpers get tattoos of the cross but don't know the above is in the bible.

Christian here. I knew that was in the Bible.

Reformed Protestant Christians (my tradition) believe that when Jesus Christ came, lived a sinless life fully fulfilling God's entire law to ancient Israel, died, and was raised again that was that for the law. The old covenant between God and his people was finished, completed by Christ himself. Now there's a new covenant. Under that new covenant the ceremonial law (like that verse in Leviticus) and the civil law (all the rules governing the government of Israel) no longer apply. Since the moral law - which is best spelled out in the 10 commandments - existed in the covenants before the old covenant, then it still applies. But the rest of it doesn't.

Before mocking Christians, you should check to see if we've actually...thought about stuff. You do realize entire PhDs exist in theology, right?

NP. This. Jesus brought in a new covenant. He discouraged religious bean counting and emphasized just two OT rules: love God, and love your neighbor. In fact, he said to go beyond loving your neighbor and love your enemy too. He also broke other specific OT rules, for example re consorting with unclean people (tax collectors lol and prostitutes) and specifically said that dietary rules were unnecessary (“it doesn’t matter what goes in your mouth, it matters what comes out of it”). So Christians are adhering to Jesus’ message by not getting fussed about Leviticus’ rules about clothing or tattoos.

This is what gets me about Christians. They disregard all the facts pointing out the flaws and inconsistencies in the Bible, since the only way to overcome the cognitive dissonance is to revert to the "Jesus is love" idea. This is tantamount to saying that Santa is real because "Santa is charitable and generous" and only has one rule: naughty or nice.

The gospels are actually quite consistent and the message is much deeper than what you're pretending.

This is what gets me about anti-Christian trolls: they post uneducated nonsense about tattoos that they read in some atheist chat group. Then when that doesn't work, they massively oversimplify the gospels.

The gospels are only consistent because they plagiarized off each other = mark, then matthew and luke, then john. You are also ignoring the fact that the rest of the Bible is not consistent, and completely contradicts itself. This is what happens to a book that has multiple authors across different generations. Perhaps the theist troll should try to understand more facts.

No, scholars who adhere to the Q Source theory about the Gospels--which is hypothetical, anyway--don't claim that John was part of it. And positing a single source for the bones of a story (which imo has some logic) still doesn't explain why the gospels read so differently or why each includes some different sets of new but consistent facts--compare Matthew to Luke, for example. Also, no Christian alive has any problem with the New Testament contradicting the Old, because Jesus explicitly said he was contradicting the Old. The ignorance here is jaw-dropping.

From another thread - here is a relatable way of explaining the development of the gospels:

Taylor Swift is tried illegally by the state and is executed. Her followers believe she didn't die and there are rumors that she spends at least a month going around singing songs to her entourage and other fans. She then disappears.

Yet, NO ONE - her fans, critics, the authorities, or the general population - document a single thing about her, her life or any aspect of such a fantastic tale.

Approximately 35 years later, someone comes forward with a written compilation about her life. The person does not reveal who they are, does not reveal their sources, or how they gathered the information contained in their story. The author makes no claim they were an actual eye witness to any of her shows or the events that transpired. Given the elapsed timeline and lack of corroborating evidence, there is no way to verify any of the story.

Another 10-15 years go by, and a new story appears. This one shares 90% of the same exact material as the first one. It too is anonymous and provides no corroborating witnesses or documentation.

Yet another 5-10 years go by, and another version appears. Again, its anonymous and provides no corroborating witnesses or documentation. This version is about 65% the same as the first story, and about 25% the same as the second.

Finally, another 5-10 years go by. Another anonymous, uncorroborated story appears. This one though only shares about 10% of material from the previous ones and is wildly different in style. The author(s) seem as if they were high when writing portions of the story.

Almost 300 years later, the fans have organized themselves into a community of supporters. They compile all these stories into one book (having rejected other stories they think don't align with their narrative). They will present this as undeniable truth about her life and say it is 100% accurate (disregarding discrepancies in the individual stories). They seek out any new information to help prove the authenticity of the stories, but find nothing.

Millennia later, Swiftologists notice an odd quirk. There are rumors of a previous artist who was also rumored to have died but still be alive and witnessed by fans, long after his death. However, Swifties deny that Elvis is anything like her and that Elvis wasn't real.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is that so Old Testament that modern Christians can ink away?

Where in the OT are tattoos even discussed?

Clear as day. Per Leviticus 19:28, “You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves.

This

I love how bible thumpers get tattoos of the cross but don't know the above is in the bible.

Christian here. I knew that was in the Bible.

Reformed Protestant Christians (my tradition) believe that when Jesus Christ came, lived a sinless life fully fulfilling God's entire law to ancient Israel, died, and was raised again that was that for the law. The old covenant between God and his people was finished, completed by Christ himself. Now there's a new covenant. Under that new covenant the ceremonial law (like that verse in Leviticus) and the civil law (all the rules governing the government of Israel) no longer apply. Since the moral law - which is best spelled out in the 10 commandments - existed in the covenants before the old covenant, then it still applies. But the rest of it doesn't.

Before mocking Christians, you should check to see if we've actually...thought about stuff. You do realize entire PhDs exist in theology, right?

NP. This. Jesus brought in a new covenant. He discouraged religious bean counting and emphasized just two OT rules: love God, and love your neighbor. In fact, he said to go beyond loving your neighbor and love your enemy too. He also broke other specific OT rules, for example re consorting with unclean people (tax collectors lol and prostitutes) and specifically said that dietary rules were unnecessary (“it doesn’t matter what goes in your mouth, it matters what comes out of it”). So Christians are adhering to Jesus’ message by not getting fussed about Leviticus’ rules about clothing or tattoos.

This is what gets me about Christians. They disregard all the facts pointing out the flaws and inconsistencies in the Bible, since the only way to overcome the cognitive dissonance is to revert to the "Jesus is love" idea. This is tantamount to saying that Santa is real because "Santa is charitable and generous" and only has one rule: naughty or nice.

The gospels are actually quite consistent and the message is much deeper than what you're pretending.

This is what gets me about anti-Christian trolls: they post uneducated nonsense about tattoos that they read in some atheist chat group. Then when that doesn't work, they massively oversimplify the gospels.

The gospels are only consistent because they plagiarized off each other = mark, then matthew and luke, then john. You are also ignoring the fact that the rest of the Bible is not consistent, and completely contradicts itself. This is what happens to a book that has multiple authors across different generations. Perhaps the theist troll should try to understand more facts.

No, scholars who adhere to the Q Source theory about the Gospels--which is hypothetical, anyway--don't claim that John was part of it. And positing a single source for the bones of a story (which imo has some logic) still doesn't explain why the gospels read so differently or why each includes some different sets of new but consistent facts--compare Matthew to Luke, for example. Also, no Christian alive has any problem with the New Testament contradicting the Old, because Jesus explicitly said he was contradicting the Old. The ignorance here is jaw-dropping.

Ignorance is believing a compilation of bronze-age fictional parables are real.

Ohh, good one, troll.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is that so Old Testament that modern Christians can ink away?

Where in the OT are tattoos even discussed?

Clear as day. Per Leviticus 19:28, “You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves.

This

I love how bible thumpers get tattoos of the cross but don't know the above is in the bible.

Christian here. I knew that was in the Bible.

Reformed Protestant Christians (my tradition) believe that when Jesus Christ came, lived a sinless life fully fulfilling God's entire law to ancient Israel, died, and was raised again that was that for the law. The old covenant between God and his people was finished, completed by Christ himself. Now there's a new covenant. Under that new covenant the ceremonial law (like that verse in Leviticus) and the civil law (all the rules governing the government of Israel) no longer apply. Since the moral law - which is best spelled out in the 10 commandments - existed in the covenants before the old covenant, then it still applies. But the rest of it doesn't.

Before mocking Christians, you should check to see if we've actually...thought about stuff. You do realize entire PhDs exist in theology, right?

NP. This. Jesus brought in a new covenant. He discouraged religious bean counting and emphasized just two OT rules: love God, and love your neighbor. In fact, he said to go beyond loving your neighbor and love your enemy too. He also broke other specific OT rules, for example re consorting with unclean people (tax collectors lol and prostitutes) and specifically said that dietary rules were unnecessary (“it doesn’t matter what goes in your mouth, it matters what comes out of it”). So Christians are adhering to Jesus’ message by not getting fussed about Leviticus’ rules about clothing or tattoos.

This is what gets me about Christians. They disregard all the facts pointing out the flaws and inconsistencies in the Bible, since the only way to overcome the cognitive dissonance is to revert to the "Jesus is love" idea. This is tantamount to saying that Santa is real because "Santa is charitable and generous" and only has one rule: naughty or nice.

The gospels are actually quite consistent and the message is much deeper than what you're pretending.

This is what gets me about anti-Christian trolls: they post uneducated nonsense about tattoos that they read in some atheist chat group. Then when that doesn't work, they massively oversimplify the gospels.

The gospels are only consistent because they plagiarized off each other = mark, then matthew and luke, then john. You are also ignoring the fact that the rest of the Bible is not consistent, and completely contradicts itself. This is what happens to a book that has multiple authors across different generations. Perhaps the theist troll should try to understand more facts.

No, scholars who adhere to the Q Source theory about the Gospels--which is hypothetical, anyway--don't claim that John was part of it. And positing a single source for the bones of a story (which imo has some logic) still doesn't explain why the gospels read so differently or why each includes some different sets of new but consistent facts--compare Matthew to Luke, for example. Also, no Christian alive has any problem with the New Testament contradicting the Old, because Jesus explicitly said he was contradicting the Old. The ignorance here is jaw-dropping.

Ignorance is believing a compilation of bronze-age fictional parables are real.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is that so Old Testament that modern Christians can ink away?

Where in the OT are tattoos even discussed?

Clear as day. Per Leviticus 19:28, “You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves.

This

I love how bible thumpers get tattoos of the cross but don't know the above is in the bible.

Christian here. I knew that was in the Bible.

Reformed Protestant Christians (my tradition) believe that when Jesus Christ came, lived a sinless life fully fulfilling God's entire law to ancient Israel, died, and was raised again that was that for the law. The old covenant between God and his people was finished, completed by Christ himself. Now there's a new covenant. Under that new covenant the ceremonial law (like that verse in Leviticus) and the civil law (all the rules governing the government of Israel) no longer apply. Since the moral law - which is best spelled out in the 10 commandments - existed in the covenants before the old covenant, then it still applies. But the rest of it doesn't.

Before mocking Christians, you should check to see if we've actually...thought about stuff. You do realize entire PhDs exist in theology, right?

NP. This. Jesus brought in a new covenant. He discouraged religious bean counting and emphasized just two OT rules: love God, and love your neighbor. In fact, he said to go beyond loving your neighbor and love your enemy too. He also broke other specific OT rules, for example re consorting with unclean people (tax collectors lol and prostitutes) and specifically said that dietary rules were unnecessary (“it doesn’t matter what goes in your mouth, it matters what comes out of it”). So Christians are adhering to Jesus’ message by not getting fussed about Leviticus’ rules about clothing or tattoos.

This is what gets me about Christians. They disregard all the facts pointing out the flaws and inconsistencies in the Bible, since the only way to overcome the cognitive dissonance is to revert to the "Jesus is love" idea. This is tantamount to saying that Santa is real because "Santa is charitable and generous" and only has one rule: naughty or nice.

The gospels are actually quite consistent and the message is much deeper than what you're pretending.

This is what gets me about anti-Christian trolls: they post uneducated nonsense about tattoos that they read in some atheist chat group. Then when that doesn't work, they massively oversimplify the gospels.

The gospels are only consistent because they plagiarized off each other = mark, then matthew and luke, then john. You are also ignoring the fact that the rest of the Bible is not consistent, and completely contradicts itself. This is what happens to a book that has multiple authors across different generations. Perhaps the theist troll should try to understand more facts.

No, scholars who adhere to the Q Source theory about the Gospels--which is hypothetical, anyway--don't claim that John was part of it. And positing a single source for the bones of a story (which imo has some logic) still doesn't explain why the gospels read so differently or why each includes some different sets of new but consistent facts--compare Matthew to Luke, for example. Also, no Christian alive has any problem with the New Testament contradicting the Old, because Jesus explicitly said he was contradicting the Old. The ignorance here is jaw-dropping.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is that so Old Testament that modern Christians can ink away?

Where in the OT are tattoos even discussed?

Clear as day. Per Leviticus 19:28, “You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves.

My gashes in my flesh are not for the dead.

That passage (and much other content) is about idolatry, and stopping practices associated with competing religions. That's where the next line is. "I am your Lord".

Modern tattoos procured by non pagan people aren't pagan rituals.

You know we are in still wandering in the desert, right?


You have to apply a little critical thinking when applying a brief document, aimed at people who lived 2000-5000 years ago, thousands of miles away, to your modern life in your current place.

But it's hard when you think that said document is holy and must be followed.

DP. PP explained that it's a holy document, but it just doesn't have the meaning you're trying to slap on it. Are you this averse to being educated about something you're clearly ignorant about?

You are the ignorant one.

OK, explain why, because pp is correct. If you're not a sad troll.

Anonymous wrote:The OT / Jewish rule set expressly forbids it. For Christianity more broadly, it would fall under though shalt not kill - that includes mutilating your own body. We are created in the image of God and getting a tattoo could be seen as sinful, although not a mortal sin in the context of Catholicism. I know this thread is just a bait to bash on Christianity more broadly. Luckily we are created with free will and you can do whatever you want.

Do you have free will if everything is already pre-determined according to God's plan?

The OT / Jewish rule set expressly forbids it. For Christianity more broadly, it would fall under though shalt not kill - that includes mutilating your own body. We are created in the image of God and getting a tattoo could be seen as sinful, although not a mortal sin in the context of Catholicism. I know this thread is just a bait to bash on Christianity more broadly. Luckily we are created with free will and you can do whatever you want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is that so Old Testament that modern Christians can ink away?

Where in the OT are tattoos even discussed?

Clear as day. Per Leviticus 19:28, “You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves.

This

I love how bible thumpers get tattoos of the cross but don't know the above is in the bible.

Christian here. I knew that was in the Bible.

Reformed Protestant Christians (my tradition) believe that when Jesus Christ came, lived a sinless life fully fulfilling God's entire law to ancient Israel, died, and was raised again that was that for the law. The old covenant between God and his people was finished, completed by Christ himself. Now there's a new covenant. Under that new covenant the ceremonial law (like that verse in Leviticus) and the civil law (all the rules governing the government of Israel) no longer apply. Since the moral law - which is best spelled out in the 10 commandments - existed in the covenants before the old covenant, then it still applies. But the rest of it doesn't.

Before mocking Christians, you should check to see if we've actually...thought about stuff. You do realize entire PhDs exist in theology, right?

NP. This. Jesus brought in a new covenant. He discouraged religious bean counting and emphasized just two OT rules: love God, and love your neighbor. In fact, he said to go beyond loving your neighbor and love your enemy too. He also broke other specific OT rules, for example re consorting with unclean people (tax collectors lol and prostitutes) and specifically said that dietary rules were unnecessary (“it doesn’t matter what goes in your mouth, it matters what comes out of it”). So Christians are adhering to Jesus’ message by not getting fussed about Leviticus’ rules about clothing or tattoos.

This is what gets me about Christians. They disregard all the facts pointing out the flaws and inconsistencies in the Bible, since the only way to overcome the cognitive dissonance is to revert to the "Jesus is love" idea. This is tantamount to saying that Santa is real because "Santa is charitable and generous" and only has one rule: naughty or nice.

The gospels are actually quite consistent and the message is much deeper than what you're pretending.

This is what gets me about anti-Christian trolls: they post uneducated nonsense about tattoos that they read in some atheist chat group. Then when that doesn't work, they massively oversimplify the gospels.

The gospels are only consistent because they plagiarized off each other = mark, then matthew and luke, then john. You are also ignoring the fact that the rest of the Bible is not consistent, and completely contradicts itself. This is what happens to a book that has multiple authors across different generations. Perhaps the theist troll should try to understand more facts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is that so Old Testament that modern Christians can ink away?

Where in the OT are tattoos even discussed?

Clear as day. Per Leviticus 19:28, “You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves.

My gashes in my flesh are not for the dead.

That passage (and much other content) is about idolatry, and stopping practices associated with competing religions. That's where the next line is. "I am your Lord".

Modern tattoos procured by non pagan people aren't pagan rituals.

You know we are in still wandering in the desert, right?


You have to apply a little critical thinking when applying a brief document, aimed at people who lived 2000-5000 years ago, thousands of miles away, to your modern life in your current place.

But it's hard when you think that said document is holy and must be followed.

DP. PP explained that it's a holy document, but it just doesn't have the meaning you're trying to slap on it. Are you this averse to being educated about something you're clearly ignorant about?

You are the ignorant one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is that so Old Testament that modern Christians can ink away?

Where in the OT are tattoos even discussed?

Clear as day. Per Leviticus 19:28, “You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves.

My gashes in my flesh are not for the dead.

That passage (and much other content) is about idolatry, and stopping practices associated with competing religions. That's where the next line is. "I am your Lord".

Modern tattoos procured by non pagan people aren't pagan rituals.

You know we are in still wandering in the desert, right?


You have to apply a little critical thinking when applying a brief document, aimed at people who lived 2000-5000 years ago, thousands of miles away, to your modern life in your current place.

But it's hard when you think that said document is holy and must be followed.

DP. PP explained that it's a holy document, but it just doesn't have the meaning you're trying to slap on it. Are you this averse to being educated about something you're clearly ignorant about?

No tattoos, as my grandfather was a survivor of the Holocaust.

I am also a firm believer in my body my choice. Someone wants them their choice no judgment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is that so Old Testament that modern Christians can ink away?

Where in the OT are tattoos even discussed?

Clear as day. Per Leviticus 19:28, “You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves.

My gashes in my flesh are not for the dead.

That passage (and much other content) is about idolatry, and stopping practices associated with competing religions. That's where the next line is. "I am your Lord".

Modern tattoos procured by non pagan people aren't pagan rituals.

You know we are in still wandering in the desert, right?


You have to apply a little critical thinking when applying a brief document, aimed at people who lived 2000-5000 years ago, thousands of miles away, to your modern life in your current place.

But it's hard when you think that said document is holy and must be followed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is that so Old Testament that modern Christians can ink away?

Where in the OT are tattoos even discussed?

Clear as day. Per Leviticus 19:28, “You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves.

My gashes in my flesh are not for the dead.

That passage (and much other content) is about idolatry, and stopping practices associated with competing religions. That's where the next line is. "I am your Lord".

Modern tattoos procured by non pagan people aren't pagan rituals.

You know we are in still wandering in the desert, right?


You have to apply a little critical thinking when applying a brief document, aimed at people who lived 2000-5000 years ago, thousands of miles away, to your modern life in your current place.

Agree. This especially applies to the sexist part of the Bible - put it into a modern context. Yet the Catholic Church still hasn’t had a female pope.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or is that so Old Testament that modern Christians can ink away?

Where in the OT are tattoos even discussed?

Clear as day. Per Leviticus 19:28, “You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves.

This

I love how bible thumpers get tattoos of the cross but don't know the above is in the bible.

I love how devotees don’t understand the context of what they are reading and use that as a source of judgement- also stated in the Bible not to do.