The (Im)Morality of TattoosPosted: July 14, 2010 Filed under: Tattoos 1 Comment
Tattoos can easily raise eyebrows in any circle. From Presbyterians, most certainly the Dutch-Reformed to even the other side of the spectrums like Fundamental Baptist, Pensacola Christian College and good ole’ Dispensationalist. The issue is always around three things; Lev. 19:27, the image of God and the body is the Holy Temple of God. If one knows me, better yet sees me they know my stance clearly from looks. The one paper I wrote on the topic 8-years ago, I thought could use some re-wording sometime soon. Until an old Word of Life friend sent me an email this past week of a paper he found in the Christian Research Journal (Vol. 28/ No. 06/ 2005) available at http://www.equip.org. The author, Lorne Zelyck reserves all editorial rights and privileges of this paper, which I hope is okay that I post a PDF of it here on my blog.
If interested in tattoos, the issue and looking for a good read, maybe the best yet I have read, this is the one. I really would like to hear your comments, questions, and remarks on this and your thoughts on the issue so please, do not be shy of that little comment box below and look forward to hearing those of you who do leave your words.
This paper was totally written by a ‘Baptist’ wasn’t it? 🙂
Anyhoo…without picking on certain nuances I found this whole paper to be rather weak. First, doing a word study on the use of stigma, qaaqa, and other implied symbolic words, doesn’t seem to prove a definitive ethic, it seems to be a bit of a non-sequitor.
Secondly, a response to Part IV. Did this guy take a logic class in school?
IV.1. Argumentum ad verecundiam, argumentum ad populum, and argumentum ad antiquitatem
IV.2. Petitio principii
IV.3. Dicto simpliciter
IV.4. Again, petitio principii and argumentum ad antiquitatem
The whole paper sets to prove that tattoos don’t violate the IOG. I don’t think he’s proven his point with logical consistency. This isn’t to say I think tattoos are right/wrong, I’m just assessing his argument. Further, even *if* it doesn’t violate IOG it seems he’s assuming this is the only argument against tattooing and his ethic, therefore, stands. This is a little simplistic.