Conformity via Tattoos
#51
I read this article weeks ago and while I admit I have strong reservations about tatoos, I think the author conflates his subjects' philosophical shortcomings with the whole issue of tatoos in a way that is illogical itself. The bad fruits of tatoos culture are actually the bad fruits of postmodernism; tatoos are an accident and are morally neutral.

Also, Jackson while I really respect you, sometimes I think you should replace your profile picture with a frowny face.
Reply
#52
cant wait to get tat number 11 and 12.
i have the designs all ready.
sip
nothing int he least wrong with decorating your body. nor churches, or your home. its what the decorations ARE that is the crux.
i see prod whacky puritanism ha infiltrated some
sip
or never left some
it seems
been a while since a tat thread. i missed them. a tattoo u get where only you or those you wish to see it does not in any way demonstrate vanity. a tat of st Benedict medals, crucifies, the Holy mother is not vain. or do you argue decorating churches is vain too?
if decorations are good enough for the House of God then they are good enough for the body. or does th eBody house something more sacred then the Body and blood of CHRIST?
Reply
#53
(11-29-2011, 12:01 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: if decorations are good enough for the House of God then they are good enough for the body. or does th eBody house something more sacred then the Body and blood of CHRIST?

Excellent point.

Of course, I put mascara on the temple of the Holy Spirit.  I like to pretty the place up a bit.
Reply
#54
The OP raises a good question and gets defensive opposition which misses the point. Overt, indelible conformity in the way of tattoos  to something which supplants conformity to the will of God. is what I think the OP is asking about..
Branch of Service, gang and prison,the Princeton tiger, and even the Jerusalem pilgrim's "Hadji" are established labels so to speak, but what of the current phenomenon? What does it mean when a teenage girl has a galaxy of stars tattoo'ed across her cheeks? Or the Flintstone characters? My friends refer to thier tattoos as "their Art" but it isn't anything they have created---someone else did---they are a canvas. And when a tattoo is on a girl's lower back or behind her neck she cannot see it, so how can this "art" be enjoyed and for whose artistic enjoyment?
Are we all superficial? Yes, I'll agree to that. Are tattoos a gauge of that superficiality? I don't know if there is a blanket answer but it is an interesting question.
Reply
#55
let me ask again to pierce through your superficial rant
if decorations are good enough for the House of God then they are good enough for the body. or does YOUR body house something more sacred then the body and blood of CHRIST?
ill wait
Reply
#56
Tattoos are mutilation, not decoration, of the body.
Reply
#57
DK,

 As to the decoration of Churches by various means,  we know that they are there to be an aid for us to lift up our thoughts and hearts to God and his saints, an exterior stimuli if you will.  It is things that man has made from the earth, fashioned for a holy purpose.
 Men were made in the image and likeness of God.  The beautiful and artistic paintings/statues/etc, in a word, were not.  We truly do not need any more embellishment.  We dress according to our state/ministry.  Tattoos are not clothing.  They are a permanent mark on our body.  The religous tattoos I have seen have never done anything for me, whereas a similiar scene, say a crucifix or of a saint can move me.  
  Anything of any size, for the sake of modesty,  will not be visible to just about everyone except for the one with the tattoo, and even they would only get a glimpse of it here and there.  The sizable tattoos alluded to above were mostly scene because the wearer was not as modest as one should be.
 I think Anthem and others speaking about vanity are closer to the truth than some will admit.  Your religous art is not a sacramental like the Miraculous Medal or the Green Scapular.
As for soldiers having a cross tattooed for I.D. purposes, taking that as being permitted by the Church(not sure of source), I would respond that like the prohibition on Cremation taught by the Church can be put aside if for example plague is striking people down left and right, then the Church perhaps(if lawfully permitted in history) has conceded a tattoo for soldiers for an important reason.

 Joe
Reply
#58
not hey are not. not anymore then carving sculptures are mutilation. or cutting your hair.
do you sport payos?
cuz it says u should.
cutting hair is mutilation didn't u know?
again ill wait for an answer.
lol
wont hold me breath though.
tats can be and ATRE for many myself included aifs for to lift up my thoughts and ehart to God. frankly Ive been saved form sin by 2 of my tats. while sinning i couldn't bare to do it while i had my tats i have. hence i didn't. the Crucifix is a powerfull image and it can tbe ignored when its a tat. for me anyway hence my point. art serves a purpose wetehr in churchs or on the body.
I'm not arguing every tat is good. but same goes with church decorations. or paintings or music. it is what the decoration ARE not the actually act in decorating which is the issue.
the tats u have seen haven't Deon anything for you. sure but they are not on your body so that sliek rather arguing certain paintings or sculptures in church don't do it for you.
fair enough
people are reached by different means
but my tats thank God HAVE done much for me.
and that to me is what counts a permanent mark on my body?
aye just as baptism mism is a permanent mark on the soul. nothing wrong with permanence.
a crucifix as a permeant mark on my bOdy?
God forbid!! run to the hills!! how dare i!!
CHRIST is permanent t lad. its only fitting to bare a cross. as a means and a constant reminder to keep my place and know how close my saviour  is to me.

Reply
#59
Mutilation is [permanently] disfiguring the appearance or degrading the function of the body through injury.  Tattoos certainly fit this definition.  Cutting off a bit of one's hair is not disfiguring or degrading, and it is certainly not permanent. 
Reply
#60
(11-29-2011, 01:14 PM)Anthem Wrote: Mutilation is [permanently] disfiguring the appearance or degrading the function of the body through injury.  Tattoos certainly fit this definition.  Cutting off a bit of one's hair is not disfiguring or degrading, and it is certainly not permanent. 

All tats, or is it just that you don't like tattoos?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)