|
Post by William Pius Robert Winslow on Jul 12, 2017 8:10:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jul 12, 2017 8:28:27 GMT -5
I dont know anything except my opinion. Our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit...so are tattoos graffitti or art?
|
|
|
Post by William Pius Robert Winslow on Jul 12, 2017 9:07:03 GMT -5
I dont know anything except my opinion. Our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit...so are tattoos graffitti or art? Not trying to pick a fight, but I did not see this to be strong enough. Was not this passage talking about fornication (quite) specifically? Nor do I see the explicit, absolute, universal prohibition of tattoos from Leviticus 19:28, yet I saw from the Haydock Commentary that there were ancient Christians who marked their arms and wrists, though not sure if they were condemned or not.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jul 12, 2017 11:08:49 GMT -5
Never said it was strong...its the principle I use. There are also issues of vanity and ego involved...prudence...public scandal...modesty...etc. NOW...that being said If I found myself on the way to a prison camp or something apocalyptic...I would prob tattoo a rosary around my left hand. So I guess its about WHY are you getting it...and what image?
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Jul 12, 2017 12:08:24 GMT -5
I've read the arguments for and against it but I haven't seen anything authoritative. As in giving an example from an approved text by someone with the authority and ability to explain the morals of the issue.
I think you can make a argument against them but also an argument as to why it would also be allowable.
|
|
|
Post by jen51 on Jul 12, 2017 12:25:50 GMT -5
Like Clotilde, I've not seen a definitive conclusion on this. As well, l agree with Voxx, tattoos, unless for a good and noble purpose, seriously lack decorum, imo. I don't think I could get one in good conscience.
I wonder if Pacelli knows?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jul 13, 2017 13:49:56 GMT -5
I researched this years ago, when it came up before. The only argument that supports the view that it is sinful is a private interpretion of Leviticus 19:28. For that reason many sects condemn the practice as sinful, as they read the Bible and self-interpret it on their own authority. The verse states:Explanation of this verse from the Haydock Catholic Commentary, 1859 edition:It could be argued that tattooing could be sinful for other reasons, depending on what is being imprinted, or the motive,but that's not what this discussion is about, which is the answer to the question of whether tattooing is sinful in and of itself. Clearly it is not.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jul 13, 2017 15:30:15 GMT -5
s I said above it all comes down to why and what is the image. Just because its an image of the BVM for instance...it could be done for vainity...etc. But intrinsic...wrong. Obviously not
|
|
|
Post by carloscamejo on Jul 13, 2017 15:55:51 GMT -5
If it's something good and holy like a crucifix or image of Our Lord, then it could be fine. Also small.
Those grotesque and unnecessary things like the name of an ex-lover in Chinese hànzì or the lyrics to something stupid and degenerate are not - especially considering the permanence of these things.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 17:36:25 GMT -5
Getting tattoos has only gone 'mainstream' recently, so older theological resources wouldn't have mentioned them anyway. Years ago, I guess not many people would have thought to get a tattoo. Men in the military might have (for identification purposes).
|
|
|
Post by Clotilde on Jul 13, 2017 17:37:44 GMT -5
I would think that there would be something written about the topic after at least WWII, given that many millitary men got tattoos.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 18:19:25 GMT -5
I would think that there would be something written about the topic after at least WWII, given that many millitary men got tattoos. Yes, I remember talking to a military man years ago who had a tattoo on his upper arm just below his shoulder; he said the only reason he had one was because he was expected to have some way of identification (a tattoo) should he die in battle. So he like the rest of the men, got a tattoo.
|
|
|
Post by kim on Jul 14, 2017 14:53:51 GMT -5
Whether or not they are sinful, they look like h--- when people get old. When I worked in the hospital I used to ask a lot of old men what their tats said because they're barely readable on old sagging flesh.
|
|
|
Post by udoc89 on Oct 4, 2017 17:31:42 GMT -5
Yes. Because they are ugly. And look hideous after about two years. And because if a spouse finds them deeply offensive, one should refrain.
|
|