User

Holy crap, man, you have actually to read the whole link. This is beyond comical now. You are the one who is being dishonest this entire thread. You already ran away from your original lie to start. "As we’ve written before, the average weekly earnings of all private-sector workers rose 16.7% over Biden’s four years, but inflation increased by more. “Real” weekly earnings fell 4%; for rank-and-file production and nonsupervisory workers, the decline was 2%. Inflation hit wage gains the hardest in the first half of Biden’s presidency, particularly in calendar year 2022. For the 12 months ending January 2025, Biden’s last year in office, real average weekly earnings went up 0.6%. Under Trump, since January, those real average earnings have risen faster; they’re up 1.6%."

I will never understand this madness. Canada has a national debt, it is growing, they have their own people with problems... and yet they are going to pay immigrants income? Liberals live in a land of unicorns and rainbows, with no grasp on reality.

How many of them are living with you and you are caring for?

Hey @Greg any updates on if there will be a forum upgrade that will bring back the search feature or not? Thanks!

It is pretty fair to point out that letting the bad guy go is not a good idea.

If you are here trying to tell us it matters, our opinion on the facts and evidence in response does in fact matter as well. You act like this forum is your personal toilet; it isn't, just because you try to treat it like it is.

Just as you want... until you and your terrorist buddies can destroy Israel. Too bad so sad, you and your kind brought all this death and destruction on the people of Gaza. You want war instead of peace.

How can you possibly think to ask anyone this question when you post what you do here?

The lazy spambot strikes again!

1. Attacking motives is not an argument You wrote: “You are blinded by the Romanist way of believing…” “You only think this because the RCC tells you…” “This is just to appease tattooed Catholics…” None of that addresses a single biblical point that was raised. You are no longer arguing from Scripture. You are speculating about psychology, ethnicity, and demographics. That is not theological reasoning. It is ad hominem. Whether someone is Catholic, Protestant, or neither does not change what the biblical text says—or does not say. 2. You just conceded the central point you’ve been denying You quoted Catholic Answers: “In principle, the Church does not oppose tattoos.” And then objected to it. But notice what you did not refute: You did not refute the ceremonial vs. moral law distinction You did not refute the New Testament setting aside of ceremonial boundary markers You did not refute the lack of any New Testament prohibition You did not refute the Romans 14 / Christian liberty framework Instead, you said: “They do this to appease the masses.” That is not an argument. That is an accusation. Even if Catholic Answers were wrong, the question remains: Where does Scripture prohibit tattoos for Christians? You still have not answered that. 3. You keep repeating the same circular argument—now for the seventh time Once again, the reasoning is: Tattoos are worldly Worldliness is sinful Therefore tattoos are sinful But you have never demonstrated biblically that tattoos are “of the flesh” in the moral sense Scripture uses. You simply assert it—then treat the assertion as proof. That is circular reasoning, and it has already been pointed out multiple times. Repeating it does not convert it into a biblical prohibition. 4. “Temple of the Holy Spirit” still does not mean “no bodily marking” This has been addressed repeatedly, but it bears repeating briefly: 1 Corinthians 6 addresses sexual immorality It does not address adornment, grooming, or neutral bodily alteration Scripture never applies the “temple” concept to tattoos, haircuts, jewelry, or markings You are extending the verse beyond its context, then treating that extension as biblical authority. That is eisegesis, not exegesis. 5. Accusing Scripture-based arguments of being “Catholic appeasement” avoids the real issue You are no longer arguing: from Leviticus from Paul from the apostles from Scripture You are now arguing from: suspicion of motives cultural stereotypes distrust of institutions That may be emotionally satisfying, but it is not biblical reasoning. The Bible stands or falls on what it actually teaches—not on what you think a church’s motives might be. 6. The question has never changed—and still has not been answered Despite all the pivots, the question remains exactly the same: Where does Scripture prohibit tattoos for Christians? Not indirectly. Not by assumption. Not by personal intuition. Not by cultural preference. Where does the Bible apply its principles to forbid tattoos? So far, it does not. 7. Final clarity At this point, the positions are clear: You believe tattoos are unwise or worldly You are free to hold that conviction personally Scripture does not bind all Christians to that conviction That is precisely the category Paul describes in Romans 14. Calling it sin without biblical warrant is what Scripture itself warns against.

OK... you are the one supporting them. LOL Same difference.

Can you even read? "They took our oil rights"

I realize 1776 has little meaning to you... but it does to many people in America. Nothing shallow about it.

At this point, this same argument has now been made at least six times in substantially the same form: “The body is God’s temple, therefore tattoos are wrong.” “General holiness principles prohibit tattoos.” “Leviticus still applies morally.” “Worldliness proves tattoos are sinful.” “Indirect biblical teaching is enough to condemn tattoos.” “If it doesn’t glorify God, it’s sinful.” And each time, the same response has already been given: General biblical principles do not, by themselves, create specific moral prohibitions unless Scripture applies them that way. Simply restating the same three assertions again does not turn them into a biblical prohibition. Why this is still circular Your reasoning is: Tattooing does not glorify God. Because it does not glorify God, it violates 1 Corinthians 6. Therefore tattooing is sinful. But the key premise—“tattooing does not glorify God”—is assumed, not demonstrated from Scripture. That is the circularity. You are not showing: that Scripture defines tattoos as “of the flesh,” that Scripture treats bodily marking as sinful, or that Paul’s “temple” argument includes neutral bodily adornment. You are simply asserting that tattoos fail your definition of glorifying God, and then using that assertion as proof. Why 1 Corinthians 6 does not do what you claim This has already been addressed multiple times, but briefly: The context of 1 Corinthians 6 is sexual immorality, not adornment. Paul is condemning sinful use of the body, not physical alteration. If “temple of the Spirit” meant “no bodily modification,” then: circumcision, medical procedures, grooming, fasting, and bodily discipline would all be condemned—which Scripture does not do. You keep reasserting the verse without engaging its context. Why your three principles still don’t prove a prohibition You listed: “Preserves the body’s natural state” “Honors God’s design” “Reflects stewardship” But Scripture never defines those principles in a way that excludes tattoos. Those principles could just as easily be used to condemn: haircuts, shaving, jewelry, makeup, corrective surgery, orthodontics, or medical tattoos. Because Scripture does not apply those principles that way. That is the decisive point—and it has already been answered repeatedly. The bottom line Repeating the same conclusion— “tattoos are worldly and don’t glorify God”— after it has already been shown not to follow from Scripture does not advance the argument. It only confirms that we are going in circles. You are still offering personal moral judgment, not biblical prohibition. And until Scripture itself applies these principles to tattoos, the conclusion remains what it has always been: The Bible does not prohibit tattoos for Christians; therefore this is a matter of conscience, not sin. Disagreement does not make something unbiblical. And repetition does not make an argument stronger.

"with the help of Trump" Putin did not invade Ukraine under his watch. Putin took Crimea and further invaded Donbas region while Obama was President and then it was once Biden was President he fully invaded. You have no regard for truth. All you have is your obsessive hate for Trump and you will lie and say or do anything to push your clinical hate for him.

Yes, they do. They were elected and have continued to wield a large plurality of support that only increases the more they attack and kill Israelis. No, I said you are on their side.

Hamas represents the Palestinians in Gaza... who you cheer on. What I understand is your obfuscation games.

You should try reading what Trump actually said.

That is not what she said.

What is funny is how you have to word this as "had a verdict made against him" so as to avoid the obvious truth that it was a civil case... Except, this is not your attitude toward illegal immigration.

I love how you didn't bother denying it.

You are once again arguing against a position that was never taken. No one claimed that “the Bible must literally name tattooing in order for it to be wrong.” What has been said repeatedly is something more precise and more basic: That distinction matters. 1. “Indirect teaching” is not the same as “biblical prohibition” You listed ten broad principles and concluded: But that conclusion does not follow unless Scripture itself makes that application. Otherwise, the same principles would condemn many things you do not believe are sinful, such as: haircuts shaving or trimming beards ear piercing jewelry wedding rings cosmetics medical tattoos (radiation markers, insulin pump sites) cosmetic surgery orthodontics contact lenses hair dye corrective surgeries All of these involve: altering the body using resources cultural expression outward appearance potential regret health risks Yet Scripture nowhere treats them as inherently sinful. The issue is not whether principles exist. The issue is whether Scripture applies them as prohibitions. 2. “Body as the temple” does not mean “no modification” You cited 1 Corinthians 6:19–20, but the context matters. Paul is addressing: sexual immorality prostitution misuse of the body for sin He is not addressing: grooming adornment cultural expression neutral bodily markings If “temple of the Holy Spirit” means no bodily alteration, then Paul himself violated it by: circumcision advocacy (Gal 5) approving medical care (Luke 5:31) encouraging fasting and discipline (1 Cor 9:27) Paul’s argument is about moral use, not physical alteration. You are importing a conclusion the text does not make. 3. Leviticus 19:28 has already been addressed—and not ignored Leviticus 19:28 explicitly ties markings to mourning for the dead and pagan ritual context. You keep asserting: But Scripture itself distinguishes: ceremonial identity markers moral law covenant boundary practices The New Testament explicitly sets aside Israel’s ceremonial boundary markers (Acts 15, Galatians, Hebrews). If Leviticus 19:28 is eternally binding as written, then consistency requires: dietary laws fabric laws ritual purity laws ceremonial markings You cannot isolate one verse without justification. 4. “Worldliness” is not defined as “things I dislike” “Do not be conformed to the world” (Rom 12:2) is not a dress code. If it were, then: suits and ties modern shoes eyeglasses printed Bibles smartphones cars electricity social media would all be “worldly.” Scripture defines worldliness as: sinful desire pride rebellion against God —not neutral cultural practices. 5. Your argument proves too much—and collapses under its own weight Every one of your ten points is: subjective context-dependent applied selectively Which is why Scripture never treats tattoos as a moral category for Christians. You are not appealing to biblical prohibition. You are appealing to personal moral intuition and then labeling it biblical. That is not the same thing. 6. The personal spiritual challenge is a rhetorical diversion Ending with: does not strengthen the argument. It shifts from: biblical reasoning to spiritual credentialing And it does so precisely when the argument itself has run out of textual support. A person can affirm: salvation the new nature life in the Spirit and still disagree with you on tattoos. Those things are not mutually exclusive. 7. The actual conclusion Scripture supports The biblical position is not: “tattoos are commanded” “tattoos are encouraged” It is: That does not mean: every tattoo is wise every motive is good every design honors God It means Scripture does not bind consciences where God has not spoken. Summary You are not demonstrating a biblical prohibition You are extending general principles beyond Scripture Your reasoning would condemn many neutral practices Scripture itself treats this as a conscience matter Questioning someone’s salvation does not change the text Disagreement does not equal disobedience. And absence of prohibition is not rebellion.

No... I don't think you understand what CRIMINAL means at all.

LOL, there is no relevance to Trump today either...

How would you know when you cowardly hide from most of it and run away from the rest?