Is tattooing wrong?

[John Stone]

I have tattoos - part of the culture. 

Could never understand why women get tattoos - and that goes double for beautiful women - ugly women my opinion is moot. 

[blackbird]

On 11/14/2025 at 9:53 AM, User said:

Leviticus 19:28 concerns pagan mourning rites, not modern body art.

False.   The verse says " 28  Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. "   Leviticus 19:28 KJV

The fact is was part of pagan mourning rites does not diminish from the command against marking the body today.  The first verse in the chapter refer to the commands as being a part of being holy in the Lord's eyes.  That never changed.

[blackbird]

40 minutes ago, John Stone said:

I have tattoos - part of the culture. 

Yes, it is a common part of culture in the world today.   The ways of the world are not what God wants for his people.

We have all done things in our past that we regret.  Having tattoos is not a barrier to becoming a child of God and receiving eternal life.  God forgives those who repent and accept his Son as their Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  And begin studying his written word, the King James Bible in English.  Everyone is born a lost sinner until he/she is born again and saved.

[User]

7 hours ago, blackbird said:

False.   The verse says " 28  Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. "   Leviticus 19:28 KJV

The fact is was part of pagan mourning rites does not diminish from the command against marking the body today.  The first verse in the chapter refer to the commands as being a part of being holy in the Lord's eyes.  That never changed.

You have replied by restating your conclusion, not by addressing the argument.

Let’s deal directly with what you wrote.

---

1. The “plain English” of the verse doesn’t say what you claim.

You quoted:

“Ye shall not… for the dead … nor print any marks upon you.”

But that is not two unrelated commands.
It is one pair of actions forming a single prohibition.

The structure in Hebrew is:

• do not cut your flesh for the dead

• and do not inscribe marks (same ritual category)

This is why every major Hebrew lexicon and every major commentary identifies one context:

Pagan mourning rites—not general body art.

Repeating your conclusion doesn’t change the textual reality.

---

**2. You still haven’t addressed the actual point:

Holiness laws in Leviticus are not automatically universal.**

You wrote:

“The fact it was part of pagan mourning rites does not diminish the command today.”

Except it does — because this is precisely how Scripture treats ceremonial laws.

If you apply this logic consistently, you must also keep:

• Leviticus 19:19 — no mixed fabrics

• Leviticus 19:23 — no eating fruit for the first 3 years

• Leviticus 19:26 — no eating rare meat

• Leviticus 19:27 — no trimming beard edges

• Leviticus 19:34 — equal land rights for foreigners

• Leviticus 19:36 — specific weights & measures laws

• Leviticus 19:17 — you must “rebuke your neighbor”

• Leviticus 19:32 — you must “stand in the presence of the aged”

These are all in the same chapter, in the same “holiness” section.

Yet you do not keep them.
You only extract one verse because it suits an argument.

That is not biblical interpretation.
That is selective literalism.

---

3. The appeal to “holiness” is not enough to create a universal prohibition.

You wrote:

“The chapter is about being holy. That never changed.”

Holiness never changed —
but what expresses holiness DID change, according to Scripture.

This is explicitly stated:

“You are not under the law but under grace.”

— Romans 6:14

“He has made the first covenant obsolete.”

— Hebrews 8:13

“Let no one judge you… with regard to festivals, food, drink, or rituals.”

— Colossians 2:16–17

“These were a shadow… the substance belongs to Christ.”

— Colossians 2:17

Holiness = belonging to God
It does not equal “do not tattoo.”

Nothing in the New Testament makes that connection.

---

4. You are asserting a rule that the Bible itself never makes.

Your argument boils down to:

“It says mark → therefore all marking is sin for all Christians forever.”

But the Bible nowhere says:

• tattoos = sinful

• body markings = sinful

• ink = sinful

• symbols on skin = sinful

• art on the body = sinful

• Leviticus 19:28 = universally moral law

If God wanted to prohibit all body marking for all people at all times,
Scripture would say so.

Instead, it gives one historically-specific command
in a long list of ceremonial regulations
within the Mosaic covenant.

You haven’t shown otherwise.
You have simply repeated your personal conclusion.

---

5. Summary

You still have not answered:

• Why all the other holiness laws from the same chapter are not binding

• Why the NT never repeats this prohibition

• Why tattoos are uniquely singled out

• Why covenant distinctions are ignored

• Why ceremonial, civil, and moral categories are collapsed

• Why pagan mourning rites = modern tattoos

• Why your standard doesn’t condemn ear piercing, hair cutting, or surgery

• Why your interpretation contradicts every major commentary across traditions

Simply restating:

“It says marks, so it applies today”

is not an argument.
It is circular reasoning.

If you want to make a biblical case,
you need to address the actual text,
the context,
the covenant,
and the New Testament.

You have not done so.

Whenever you are ready to engage those points directly,
the conversation can continue.

[John Stone]

On 11/20/2025 at 2:21 PM, blackbird said:

Yes, it is a common part of culture in the world today.   The ways of the world are not what God wants for his people.

We have all done things in our past that we regret.  Having tattoos is not a barrier to becoming a child of God and receiving eternal life.  God forgives those who repent and accept his Son as their Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  And begin studying his written word, the King James Bible in English.  Everyone is born a lost sinner until he/she is born again and saved.

I don't regret my tattoos - far from it - they're milestones. 

A beautiful female with a tattoo is anathema to me tho. 

[Goddess]

I just got this one last week.  It has special meaning to me and the black lace matches other tattoos I have.  Mine is colorful with roses added, though.

[John Stone]

On 11/24/2025 at 1:10 PM, Goddess said:

I just got this one last week.  It has special meaning to me and the black lace matches other tattoos I have.  Mine is colorful with roses added, though.

...... if my woman has a tattoo I prefer it to be concealable - small, discrete. 

Our secret. 

[blackbird]

On 11/20/2025 at 5:17 PM, User said:

If you want to make a biblical case,
you need to address the actual text,
the context,
the covenant,
and the New Testament.

You have not done so.

Whenever you are ready to engage those points directly,
the conversation can continue.

The question as to whether it is right or wrong for a Christian (or anyone) should get tattoos is actually addressed indirectly by teachings in the Bible.  The Bible does not need to specifically name something like tattoo or tattooing to teach that it is wrong.  You seem to be hung up on the need to see a specific sentence condemning something.  We've seen you do that continually on other topics.

Your argument that there must be a specific sentence condemning tattooing is a false argument because if you read the following points, it will demonstrate something can be proven to be wrong without actually naming the specific practice.

quote

① Body as God’s Temple

② Old Testament Prohibition

③ Avoiding Worldly Conformity

 ④ Stewardship of Resources

⑤ Focus on Inner Beauty

⑥ Avoiding Regret

⑦ Honoring God’s Image

⑧ Witness to Others

⑨ Health and Safety Risks

⑩ Seeking God’s Will

Aligning Tattoos and Faith

           10 Biblical Reasons Not To Get A Tattoo

 Each of these ten subjects is explained at the link.  No use posting it all here.  If you want to know you can click on the link and read them.

Here is just one important reason:

"

Our bodies are sacred. Why does this matter? Scripture calls them temples of the Holy Spirit. Tattooing may be seen as altering God’s creation. I believe honoring our bodies means keeping them as God designed. Avoiding tattoos respects this principle.

1. Preserves body’s natural state.

2. Honors God’s design.

3. Reflects spiritual stewardship.

Bible Verse: "19  What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20  For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s. "   1 Corinthians 6:19, 20 KJV

Tattoos and faith call for careful stewardship.  unquote

When one is born again, he receives a new nature.  We are not to live in the flesh but to live in the Spirit.  Have you received this new nature and walk in the Spirit?  Do you have eternal life?   Do you know where you are going when you leave this world?

 

[User]

58 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The question as to whether it is right or wrong for a Christian (or anyone) should get tattoos is actually addressed indirectly by teachings in the Bible.  The Bible does not need to specifically name something like tattoo or tattooing to teach that it is wrong.  You seem to be hung up on the need to see a specific sentence condemning something.  We've seen you do that continually on other topics.

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:

General biblical principles do not automatically create specific moral prohibitions unless Scripture itself applies them that way.

That distinction matters.

---

1. “Indirect teaching” is not the same as “biblical prohibition”

You listed ten broad principles and concluded:

“Therefore tattooing is wrong.”

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:

“That doesn’t diminish the command.”

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:

“Are you born again? Do you have eternal life?”

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:

Scripture does not prohibit tattoos for Christians,
therefore they fall under Christian liberty and conscience
(Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8–10).

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.

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, User said:

• You are not demonstrating a biblical prohibition

•  

Yes I did.  

I quoted to you:

1. Preserves body’s natural state.

2. Honors God’s design.

3. Reflects spiritual stewardship.

Does tattooing respect these three principles?  No it doesn't.

"19  What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20  For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s. "  1 Corinthians 6:19 KJV

Does tattooing glorify God in your body?  No, it doesn't.  It is entirely of the world and the flesh.

Edited December 20, 2025 by blackbird

[User]

42 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Yes I did.  

At this point, this same argument has now been made at least six times in substantially the same form:

1. “The body is God’s temple, therefore tattoos are wrong.”

2. “General holiness principles prohibit tattoos.”

3. “Leviticus still applies morally.”

4. “Worldliness proves tattoos are sinful.”

5. “Indirect biblical teaching is enough to condemn tattoos.”

6. “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:

1. Tattooing does not glorify God.

2. Because it does not glorify God, it violates 1 Corinthians 6.

3. 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.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, User said:

At this point, this same argument has now been made at least six times in substantially the same form:

1. “The body is God’s temple, therefore tattoos are wrong.”

2. “General holiness principles prohibit tattoos.”

3. “Leviticus still applies morally.”

4. “Worldliness proves tattoos are sinful.”

5. “Indirect biblical teaching is enough to condemn tattoos.”

6. “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:

1. Tattooing does not glorify God.

2. Because it does not glorify God, it violates 1 Corinthians 6.

3. 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.

Your way of posting long, repetitious comments has no credibility.  You are blinded by the Romanist way of believing only what the RCC tells you.  Because Rome doesn't condemn tattooing, you think it is fine.  Why would they say anything against it?  Probably around a quarter of the men in the RCC have tattoos from all over Mexico, central and south America and the rest of world.  Tattoos are part of making out one is a tough or macho kind of guy,  i.e. manly.  It is purely worldly and of the flesh.

Edited December 20, 2025 by blackbird

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, User said:

Disagreement does not make something unbiblical.
And repetition does not make an argument stronger.

Just checked one website about what the Catholic church says about it.  That must be where you get your ideas.

"

The reason being that, in principle, the Church does not oppose tattoos.

Ceremonial Law vs. Moral Law

Sometimes people point to the passage in Leviticus that says, ”Do not . . . put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord” (19:28).

But this verse is not binding upon Christians for the same reason that the verse “nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth made of two kinds of stuff” (Lev. 19:19) is not binding upon Christians. Namely, it is a part of the ceremonial law that was binding upon the Jewish people but not binding upon Christians (except for when it coincides with the moral law)."

What does the Church Teach about Tattoos? | Catholic Answers Magazine

I explained why it is wrong.   You prefer the unbiblical church teaching as from this website above.

My view is their teaching is simply to appease the hundreds of millions of Catholics in the world many of whom probably have tattoos.  It is an appeasement thing and to maintain the support of the masses of people with tattoos.   

We know the Bible has a low status in the RCC and man's traditions are what matters.  So what the Pope and church councils say is the important thing in the RCC.

[User]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

Your way of posting long, repetitious comments has no credibility.

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:

1. Tattoos are worldly

2. Worldliness is sinful

3. 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.

[blackbird]

New study reveals potential health risk behind tattoos

[blackbird]

Tattoos may be putting your immune system at risk, new study shows

FDA warns of health risks in tattoo ink

Edited December 29, 2025 by blackbird

[User]

14 hours ago, blackbird said:

New study reveals potential health risk behind tattoos

Sooooo moving on from your failed scriptural/moral arguments to general health concerns. 

 

[blackbird]

10 minutes ago, User said:

Sooooo moving on from your failed scriptural/moral arguments to general health concerns. 

 

Just another reason tattooing is wrong.  Don't abuse one's body.

[User]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

Just another reason tattooing is wrong.  Don't abuse one's body.

Wrong... how?

If you want to make a health argument, fine, but these studies are not conclusive. There are studies like this every year. One year egg whites are good then bad then it is the yolks that are good or bad... 

This doesn't make tattooing wrong, it just means there is some concern or small risk to consider if doing it. 

[blackbird]

Is tattooing wrong?  Well, consider this man.  You be the judge.   From a post on FB.

"Brazilian Leandro de Souza, once the “most tattooed man in Brazil” with 95% of his body covered in ink, now endures painful laser removal to erase it all. He found evangelical Christian faith and wants his outward appearance to match his inner renewal.

“If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” 2 Corinthians 5:17.

Jesus rewrites lives completely, no matter how deep the past runs. Pray Leandro finishes strong in full obedience."

 

Edited January 15 by blackbird

[User]

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

Is tattooing wrong?  Well, consider this man.  You be the judge.   From a post on FB.

Anecdotes don’t create commandments.
Regret doesn’t equal sin.
And 2 Corinthians 5:17 is about the heart, not ink.

This still isn’t a biblical prohibition.

[blackbird]

10 minutes ago, User said:

Anecdotes don’t create commandments.
Regret doesn’t equal sin.
And 2 Corinthians 5:17 is about the heart, not ink.

This still isn’t a biblical prohibition.

Why would anybody believe you understand the Bible?  You follow an anti-Christian religious-political system that rejects the Bible as the final authority.

1.  Your system makes a man or church councils the infallible arbiters of what the truth or Bible says.

2.  Your system makes the RCC the intermediary between an individual and God with all its sacraments and earthly priests. 

3.  Your system worships Mary and saints, not to mention the people worship the host on the basis of the claim it is changed into the physical body and blood of Jesus Christ.

3.  You follow this false system which is not supported by the Bible;  yet claim to understand the Bible.  That is a contradiction.

 

[User]

52 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Why would anybody believe you understand the Bible? 

This reply abandons the argument entirely and replaces it with personal attacks and misrepresentation.

Nothing you wrote engages the question that was being discussed:
Is tattooing biblically prohibited?

Instead, you shifted to:

• attacking motives,

• asserting guilt by association,

• and repeating long-standing caricatures rather than addressing Scripture.

That tactic doesn’t strengthen your case. It signals that the case has run out of substance.

You are free to disagree with Catholic theology.
But disagreement does not excuse misrepresenting it, and it does not turn personal hostility into biblical evidence.

Most importantly, none of what you just wrote establishes:

• a biblical command against tattoos,

• a moral prohibition,

• or a clear scriptural teaching that makes them sinful.

Until Scripture itself does that, the claim remains unproven.

If you want to discuss theology, we can do that seriously and accurately.
If the conversation is going to be reduced to insults and slogans, then the point has already been conceded.

[blackbird]

47 minutes ago, User said:

This reply abandons the argument entirely and replaces it with personal attacks and misrepresentation.

Nothing you wrote engages the question that was being discussed:
Is tattooing biblically prohibited?

Instead, you shifted to:

• attacking motives,

• asserting guilt by association,

• and repeating long-standing caricatures rather than addressing Scripture.

That tactic doesn’t strengthen your case. It signals that the case has run out of substance.

You are free to disagree with Catholic theology.
But disagreement does not excuse misrepresenting it, and it does not turn personal hostility into biblical evidence.

Most importantly, none of what you just wrote establishes:

• a biblical command against tattoos,

• a moral prohibition,

• or a clear scriptural teaching that makes them sinful.

Until Scripture itself does that, the claim remains unproven.

If you want to discuss theology, we can do that seriously and accurately.
If the conversation is going to be reduced to insults and slogans, then the point has already been conceded.

What you say is false.   The fact is you claim I don't have the support of the Bible to oppose tattooing.  We disagree about that.  But I simply pointed out the fact you don't really accept the Bible anyway.  The fact is I pointed out things in the RC teachings which contradict the Bible and you accepted none of it.  Your view of the Bible is locked into what Rome teaches you about it and you are not to deviate or accept any other interpretation of the Bible.  This is not personal hostility as you claim, but is just a completely opposite view of what the Bible is saying.

Go back and read what the Reformation was all about.  Why do you think Martin Luther was condemned as a heretic or apostate?  He simply rejected Rome's teachings and believed in the Bible.  He found the Bible to be much different that what Rome was teaching.    

The fact is you only believe what the RCC tells you to believe about the Bible.  Everything else you dismiss.

Edited January 16 by blackbird

[User]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

What you say is false.   

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.