Is tattooing wrong?

[blackbird]

11 hours ago, User said:

You’ve just changed the subject again.

The question was never whether Catholicism is correct, whether Rome teaches rightly, or whether I accept every Catholic interpretation.
Those are separate debates.

The question you made publicly was very narrow and very specific:

Does Scripture itself prohibit tattooing?

So far, you have not produced:

• a command,

• a prohibition,

• or a moral category in Scripture
  that actually says tattooing is sinful.

Instead, you keep doing the same thing:

1. asserting principles you believe imply a ban,

2. treating your inference as if it were a biblical command,

3. and when that inference is challenged, shifting to attacking my theology or motives.

That doesn’t prove your claim. It avoids it.

Disagreeing with your conclusion is not “rejecting the Bible.”
It is rejecting an extra-biblical rule you are trying to impose as if it were Scripture.

If tattooing is sinful, then Scripture must say so in substance, not by assumption.
Until that happens, the issue remains unresolved, no matter how often you repeat the accusation.

When you’re ready to address that question directly, we can continue.

I've already addressed the question.  I am not going to go back and repeat things endlessly.

The Bible makes it clear our bodies belong to the God and should be treated respectfully, not marked up unnecessarily.

You don't accept that because you seem to have a totally different way of looking at the Bible.  You insist it must state exact, specific words condemning tattoos, which is ridiculous.  That is not how anyone who knows anything about the Bible understands it.  Except possibly the RCC, which entirely puts its own interpretation on the Bible, which in many subjects is totally contrary to what the Bible teaches.

[User]

44 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I've already addressed the question.  I am not going to go back and repeat things endlessly.

The Bible makes it clear our bodies belong to the God and should be treated respectfully, not marked up unnecessarily.

You don't accept that because you seem to have a totally different way of looking at the Bible.  You insist it must state exact, specific words condemning tattoos, which is ridiculous.  That is not how anyone who knows anything about the Bible understands it.  Except possibly the RCC, which entirely puts its own interpretation on the Bible, which in many subjects is totally contrary to what the Bible teaches.

I have not argued for Catholicism once in this discussion.
I have not appealed to Catholic authority.
I have not defended Catholic teaching on tattoos.
I have not said “Rome says X, therefore X is true.”

You are the one who keeps injecting Catholicism into the conversation because you cannot defend your claim on its own terms.

The argument has never been:
“Catholicism allows tattoos, therefore tattoos are fine.”

The argument has always been:
You claimed the Bible prohibits tattooing.
That claim requires biblical support.

Pointing out that your conclusion is an inference rather than a command is not “rejecting Scripture.”
It is how biblical reasoning actually works.

Saying:
“our bodies belong to God”
does not automatically equal
“therefore tattoos are sinful.”

If it did, then every form of bodily alteration would be sinful, including:

• haircuts

• grooming

• jewelry

• cosmetic surgery

• medical procedures

• piercings

• braces

• makeup

You don’t believe that, which proves the principle alone does not establish the rule.

And accusing me of secretly arguing from Catholicism does not fix that gap.
It only confirms that when your inference is challenged, you change the subject and attack the person instead of the argument.

If you believe Scripture forbids tattooing, then demonstrate the prohibition.
If you cannot, then the honest position is to admit that this is your conscience-based conviction, not a biblical command.

Anything else is misdirection.