How did earrings and body piercings come in?
There are those who are not familiar with the law, so do care to enlighten.. So like, what law or scripture are you talking about? What scripture puts "bodily harm" and "piercing" and "tattoo" in a single thought that it is unlawful? Or what scripture are you basing the thought that tattoos and body adornments (you said earrings) are both put in a context that it is unlawful? The Deut 15:17 ron posted, if how he witnessed used as pambatikos to someone who pierced, it's way out of context, but it's not even entirely about piercing for adornment..
Then the "taboo" thing.. So because something is "taboo" right now that is not directly stated as "taboo" in the old society, means that everything considered taboo for a Christian nowadays is based on opinion, not on scripture? Extending then the thought, though it stretching too far -- because Meth is a taboo now because of the modern anti-dangerous drug act, if I don't take it 'for the sake of Christ,' I'm basing it on opinion and not on scripture? It's far fetched, but the taboo argument some one might take too far, like what I exampled.
You may be setting up a totally unrelated thing you can stab as unreasonable to consider something else, the main topic (tattoos and its acceptability in the setting the TS asked) as unreasonable..
1. Leviticus 19:28 is the oft mentioned scripture regarding tattoos.
says, "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD."
Now, taken as it is, this is a command that prohibits cutting AND markings because of the dead.
Most people who quote this against tattoos also leave out the part where people do it for the dead.
Therefore, if one can affirm the prohibition of markings without the consideration of the dead, then one can also affirm the prohibition of piercings without consideration of the dead. Thus, in this line of thought, one can find a prohibition for both piercings and tattoos in the same verse.
HOWEVER, I must state that by using the aforementioned line of thought, the verse is taken out of context (that being doing these things for the dead), and thus I was able to argue that one may have a flawed interpretation, one's opinion superseded the scripture (nitpicking the piercings and tattoos, and leaving the "for the dead" part out), or failing to classify piercings and tattoos as the same (as stated, both are done for the dead).
2. I don't think I ever insinuated that what is considered taboo now is entirely based on opinion and not scripture. It's pretty ill-thinking to say that all taboo is based entirely on opinion, because by definition, taboo is "a social or religious custom prohibiting or forbidding discussion of a particular practice or forbidding association with a particular person, place, or thing."
As well, a custom is "a traditional and widely accepted way of behaving or doing something that is specific to a particular society, place, or time." And in turn, tradition is "the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way."
Basically speaking, a taboo is always based on beliefs, whether from the scripture, which is the Christian religious tradition, or our own opinions shaped by the society we live in now. A taboo can be based entirely on scripture, both on scripture and opinion, or entirely on opinion, so I don't really know why I'm taking the flak on your second point if I actually agree with you anyway.
