Is Getting a Tattoo a Sin?

[colmcille1]

Ecclesiastes 2:1 - Read it in context. It speaks of too much worldly pleasure and centering human existence around it. Again, far from what I’ve seen in people who simply wanna try a tattoo.

Hi Lost Wanderer,
Thank you for your reply.
You have to think about the word “indulgence”.

Jer 10:3 - What in the blazes do wooden statues have to do with this!?

You must have an inferior Bible. Try the D-R.

Your distinctions are moot. Hence, my intelligence is simply offended by your incapacity to see the analogy and deal with it properly. Both the human body and sacred buildings are holy, why can we decorate the latter and not the former? Answer the question.

You decorate the latter because it is done for that which is greater than you. You desecrate the former because you think you are greater than it.

How is it not relevant? You vainly attempt to discredit tattoos because permanent tattoos are regretted. I give you temporary tattoos as an alternative and a solution to whatever “regret” people would have.

Marking is indulgence.

Please learn to actually be a critical reader before trying to educate this English LnL (Language and Literature). My sentence is quite clear that I was referring to the act of “people expressing their faith via tattoos”. And yes, you did deem such acts pointless.

Please read your statement again :"…then I don’t see why you’d deem people expressing their faith via tattoos to be “pointless”"; did you mean to write "…then I don’t see why you’d deem the acts of people who express their faith via tattoos to be “pointless”?
If you did mean that, then I say they are pointless because the very existence of a church is a tangible testament to the public side of our Faith. The private side should be one of respectful prayer and should not include the selfish indulgence of marking one’s God-given gift.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Splinker]

“You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves: I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:28).

 

[Splinker]

“You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves: I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:28).

Perhaps it was the tattooing of a God’s name that was prohibited. Or the permanent nature of the marking that triggered the prohibition.

It was believed that tattooing was a custom among the pagans who marked themselves for idolatry.

I’m sure these issues have already been stated.

 

[Splinker]

On the other hand:

“One shall say, ‘I am the Lord’s,’ and another shall use the name of Jacob, and another shall mark his arm ‘of the Lord’ and adopt the name of Israel” (Isaiah 44:5), “See, I have engraved You on the palms of my hands…” (Isaiah 49:16), and " …is a sign on every man’s hand that all men may know His doings" (Job 37:7).

 

[sarahelizabeth]

I find it ridiculous to compare having my ex-boyfriend’s name tattooed on me to having a mark of Christ tattooed on me. People change and leave. People are undependable. God and His son Jesus Christ are eternal. Regardless of who I date Jesus Christ is my one true love. I agree that if tattooing is vanity in your opinion then I wonder about your own personal hygiene and fashion habits. Are you Amish? (not that there is anything wrong with that.) Are you against the cross or a crucifix as jewelry or on clothing? My tattoo is my brand. Its like a cross necklace that no one can ever take from me while I live. This is not vanity. It is pride in my faith. Thank you God that I live in America and can show your mark on my body for all the world to see. Thank you God for giving me the confidence to choose never to deny you no matter what the circumstances.

 

[colmcille1]

I find it ridiculous to compare having my ex-boyfriend’s name tattooed on me to having a mark of Christ tattooed on me. People change and leave. People are undependable. God and His son Jesus Christ are eternal. Regardless of who I date Jesus Christ is my one true love. I agree that if tattooing is vanity in your opinion then I wonder about your own personal hygiene and fashion habits. Are you Amish? (not that there is anything wrong with that.) Are you against the cross or a crucifix as jewelry or on clothing? My tattoo is my brand. Its like a cross necklace that no one can ever take from me while I live. This is not vanity. It is pride in my faith. Thank you God that I live in America and can show your mark on my body for all the world to see. Thank you God for giving me the confidence to choose never to deny you no matter what the circumstances.

Hi sarahelizabeth,
I do not know to whom you address your post. If it is to myself, then I will answer it in this way.
A tattoo is a tattoo is a tattoo. If you really believe that you can actually distinguish between a “good” (in this case religious) and a “bad” (anything besides religious) tattoo then you are missing my argument entirely. I am saying quite unambiguously that tattoos are signs of a vanity which springs from a weakness of spirit. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that “religious” tattoos are even more of a vain embellishment than any other type.
The very fact that that you mention my “personal hygiene and fashion habits” shows how muddled your thinking on this issue is. If you further cannot distinguish between the aforesaid hygiene and fashion from the subject of tattoos, then not only are you missing my argument but you are confusing the entire thrust of the thread.
“My tattoo is my brand”. You’re darn right! Branded like a beast of the field.
And your next statements reek of melodramatic attention-seeking.
Faith requires sterner stuff than mere inked indulgence.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[BlueShadow123]

Not as long as its somewhere other than your right hand or forehead.

 

[ccpoisonivy]

Hi cc,
I approach the subject from the angle of the actual thought process that goes into the decision to wear a tattoo. I believe vanity is the impetus behind such a decision because we see it as personal adornment; this is regardless of our probable intention of proclaiming religious adherence.
I cannot go along with your analogy of the body/church. A church is a common hallowed space for the community of worshippers. One’s body is a beautifully private God-given gift.
Why would we become inked-up billboards for all and sundry to gaze upon? What is the reason other than human vanity?
Even if we discuss tattoos outside of a religious dimension: how many people get tattoos and some time later regret their decision? I know one local man who had a huge portrait of his football team’s best player tattooed on his back. The following season, the player was sold to another club! What about lovers who split up and wear their exes names on arms, chest etc? Or teens who do it as a sign of rebellion and eventually regret it?
I do not see the point of religious tattoos. True faith comes from the heart.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

I approach the idea from the Church’s point of view. I understand the argument - it is not sound, but I understand what you say colmcille.

There is scripture to be interpreted either way. The point to be made is the Church has NOT stated that tattoos are against Catholic teachings. Period.

I understand you THINK it is vanity. I have provided scripture where we are told that our body is a temple. Do we not adorne our temples to honor God? Or do we leave dirt floors, bare wood, and exposed nails. This is the way the items came into the world originally. You may feel I am making a stretch, but my priest said his homely on the body as a temple a while ago and stressed taking care of it, exercising, eating right, wearing nice clean clothes… cutting our hair in a “nice” way and brushing our teeth. Basically respecting our bodies. And I respect my body. Anyone who doesn’t is judging me and not loving me as Jesus. There is a scripture about that too… You know, the whole stone thing.

Also, I wasn’t talking about people who are getting tattoos outside of a religious aspect. I was talking about religious tattoos. So your statement about the ex’s name, etc doesn’t apply here. I am 100% always going to be proud of my faith and my personal relationship with God. I will never regret my tattoo.

Anyone who tells me I am branded like a beast in the field is totally correct. I am a sheep in the Lord’s flock. Better to be a branded sheep in the Lord’s flock than a lost sheep belonging no where. (Not that I am saying someone has to have a religious tattoo to belong to the Lord. Don’t think that, please.)

I wasn’t going to even address your comment to me until I read what you wrote to sarahelizabeth. "And your next statements reek of melodramatic attention-seeking.
Faith requires sterner stuff than mere inked indulgence."

TOTALLY uncalled for. We are in a religious forum. Where we can express our joy for God. I really don’t understand your personal attack on her.

I have supported my opinion with lack of Church documentation and with scripture. What have you given beside your opinion? Nothing.

Good day!

 

[LionOfJudah1]

Tattoo’s are sin so no you shouldn’t get one. Its written in Leviticus. 19:28 You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD.

When in doubt follow the scripture.

 

[phoenixrrt62]

Yeah. An ugly one, that is…
badtattoos.com/
ugliesttattoos.failblog.org/

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Tattoo’s are sin so no you shouldn’t get one. Its written in Leviticus. 19:28 You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD.

When in doubt follow the scripture.

This is fast growing tiresome. I will repeat what should be immediately and self-evidently obvious to all.

As I pointed out earlier, the verse directly before the one you quoted - Leviticus 19:27 - forbids a man even from trimming his beard.

Do you claim that shaving is wrong?

This is just one of many, many examples of obviously obsolete Levitical laws that Christians no longer follow. We are no longer under the Law. You should know this at least from Acts and Romans…

I am saying quite unambiguously that tattoos are signs of a vanity which springs from a weakness of spirit.

And I’m saying that you’re ludicrously absolutizing your own aesthetic preferences into moral generalities.

I know at least one very holy, selfless man who has a tattoo (his is religious, though that’s not really necessary to my point). That alone disproves your reckless generalization.

 

[colmcille1]

** We are in a religious forum. Where we can express our joy for God. I really don’t understand your personal attack on her. **

Hi cc,
Please do me the courtesy of reading sarahelizabeth’s post.
Now, tell me what in the name of all that is holy is she talking about? “Personal hygiene…fashion…”??? And why don’t you ask yourself the same question? What are you people smoking?!?
Yes, we are indeed on a religious forum, Mr. High-and-Mighty, and do you think it would have been pleasant for a member of the Amish community to see her reference to them?
Oh, that’s right, they don’t use computers, so therefore it’s okay to disrespect them, is that it? Is that the sort of warped thinking you subscribe to? Don’t dare talk to me about “religious” forums with the tone of a doorman to an exclusive nightclub!
You have ground-in inky filth besmirching your skin and you waffle on about “hygiene”!!!
Why don’t you go off and set up a ‘Tattoed for Christ’ sect somewhere.
In the meantime, I wish you happiness and true peace,
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[colmcille1]

And I’m saying that you’re ludicrously absolutizing your own aesthetic preferences into moral generalities.

I know at least one very holy, selfless man who has a tattoo (his is religious, though that’s not really necessary to my point). That alone disproves your reckless generalization.

Hi Fone,
So you know one very holy man with a tattoo…? So therefore everything’s fine…
Tell me something: what would you think about a competition for the best religious tattoo?
Let’s say, in the US and Canada? Do you think that would be a good idea?
I’m really anxious to hear your thinking about this? What criteria would be involved in the judging process, do you reckon? And do you think it would be permissable for a guy whose entire body is bedecked with tatts to enter even if only one of his tattoos was religious? Would you have male/female/other categories?
And would the competition be open to the prison population: would they have their own special category?
Would entered tattoos have to be at least a year-old in order to stop deliberately new and ornate ones from being admissable?
I really want to find out what is the thinking behind tattoos: is that clear enough?
(BTW, my signing off words to my posts are the only moral absolutizing worth bothering with.)
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

You have to think about the word “indulgence”.

Again, another Pharisaical, exaggerated judgment on your part.
Harmless fun =/= indulgence.

Using your logic, people should all be locked up in convents and should refrain from merrymaking. I thought we were Catholics, not Puritans.

You must have an inferior Bible. Try the D-R.

Sorry, I don’t have time to waste on different Bible versions. I’ll stick to the NAB, thank you very much.

You decorate the latter because it is done for that which is greater than you. You desecrate the former because you think you are greater than it.

Another nonsensical distinction. A religious building is no more holier/greater than a human being. In fact, much of Catholic moral theology is centered on the protection of human dignity. I don’t see much in the CCC attributing such sacredness to a man-made structure.

If you did mean that, then I say they are pointless because the very existence of a church is a tangible testament to the public side of our Faith. The private side should be one of respectful prayer and should not include the selfish indulgence of marking one’s God-given gift.

Really, last time I checked, the only thing a church represents to non-believers these days is a place they want torn down. On the other hand, who are you to tell people how they should express themselves? There is no Vatican mandate against the wearing of tattoos so I don’t think you should put yourself to be greater than those in moral authority.

 

[colmcille1]

Again, another Pharisaical, exaggerated judgment on your part.
Harmless fun =/= indulgence.

Hi Lost Wanderer,
Thank you for your reply.
There is nothing harmless about marking your skin. It is the attitude behind such an act that is a sign of weak spirit.

Using your logic, people should all be locked up in convents and should refrain from merrymaking. I thought we were Catholics, not Puritans.

You exaggerate to gain effect. Very poor.

Sorry, I don’t have time to waste on different Bible versions. I’ll stick to the NAB, thank you very much.

Why would you automatically assume that time spent on Scripture would be wasted?
Are you chairman of a billion-dollar corporation whose time is stretched to the nth degree?

Another nonsensical distinction. A religious building is no more holier/greater than a human being. In fact, much of Catholic moral theology is centered on the protection of human dignity. I don’t see much in the CCC attributing such sacredness to a man-made structure.

And, once again, you miss my point. I was referring to the celebration of the Eucharist; not the structure in which it takes place: *You decorate the latter for that *](Eucharist)

which is greater than you.

Really, last time I checked, the only thing a church represents to non-believers these days is a place they want torn down. On the other hand, who are you to tell people how they should express themselves? There is no Vatican mandate against the wearing of tattoos so I don’t think you should put yourself to be greater than those in moral authority.

I assumed, in this instance, we were talking about believers and their tattoos; that is why I drew the distinction between public and private expressions of Faith.
I do not put myself forward as a greater authority than the Vatican; but I certainly challenge those who see tattoos as a valid expression of religious adherence.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

There is nothing harmless about marking your skin. It is the attitude behind such an act that is a sign of weak spirit.

More Pharisaical presuppositions? You do know that what you say can also apply to not just make-up but also people writing numbers and short-notice reminders on their palms? How can you even begin to rationally defend a position that is fished from a place so deep in the depths of ignorance?

Why would you automatically assume that time spent on Scripture would be wasted?
Are you chairman of a billion-dollar corporation whose time is stretched to the nth degree?

Read again. Different versions =/= Scripture. Are you in the same league as the KJV-Onlyists?

And, once again, you miss my point. I was referring to the celebration of the Eucharist; not the structure in which it takes place: *You decorate the latter for that *(Eucharist) which is greater than you.

Excuse me? Will you read my posts again? The original analogy was between a human being and a church building, not the Eucharist!

I do not put myself forward as a greater authority than the Vatican; but I certainly challenge those who see tattoos as a valid expression of religious adherence.

What and you think your right to challenge does not demand authority? Again, who are you tell people? You’re not a prophet. You’re not even a priest. I don’t see why you would make it your business as to how other people express their beliefs.

 

[At_Trent]

gee lw, I thought it was just me… you just don’t seem to dig the right of others to express their opinion

 

[colmcille1]

Hi Lost Wanderer,
Thank you for your reply.
I have not included your reply as I think you are missing my entire argument.
(It’s late where I am and I am dog tired. So, forgive me if I do not address your confusion.)
May I just suggest that you look over that part of my post where I very clearly show how the body/church analogy fails.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

gee lw, I thought it was just me… you just don’t seem to dig the right of others to express their opinion

I’m sorry but I thought the right to an opinion goes both ways. Just because you have a right to say something stupid, does not mean I don’t have a right to call on you for it. That’s Freedom of Speech is really about mmkay?

May I just suggest that you look over that part of my post where I very clearly show how the body/church analogy fails.

Clearly? I already told you, your distinctions are moot.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Hi Trelow,
You are a jew, grafted in. And not one law will pass away until their time. Still in force, additionally, you had better ask Christ because He bought your body, it is no longer yours and it is God’s temple.

1Corinthians 3:16 " Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you. 3:17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple your are.
The answer is NO you can not have a tat. There should not be an arguement but complete agreement.

May you be filled with Christ
and walk in love
edwinGhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

Some of those Mosaic Laws HAVE passed their time. You can’t kill your kill your child anymore for talking back to you. One can’t stone Adulterers anymore----except in Islamic Countries. “Crushed Testicles” are no longer forbidden.

As to the Op------I personally have no problem with Tats as long as they are “tasteful” and are even used to Glorify the Lord. I DO think being covered with them from head to foot IS overkill and disrespectful, though. MY opinion, of course.