[Moparbyfar]

The cross is a pagan symbol, therefore not of christian origin, and it doesn't matter whether the tat is a cross, tick or dash, true christians would not need to mark themselves permanently with ink to prove their faith to God or anyone else.

[dwashbur]

The cross is a pagan symbol

This is the funniest thing I have read all week.

[Moparbyfar]

Spread the smiles dwashbur! :D

[gromitt82]

I'm Baptist and I've been wanting a tattoo of a cross for a long time. Just recently i was told getting a tattoo is against the bible and is a sin. Is this true if it is a symbol of your religion and showing your faith? If i were to get it, it would be the only tattoo i would ever want and it would be on my upper arm where nobody could see it unless i had my shirt off.

And if it is a sin, would god forgive me for getting it even though it is perminent?

Although i don't attend church on a regular basis like I should, I prey every night before bed and always ask god for forgiveness for my sins and thank him for a list of things.

All opinions and help are welcome, thanks :)

Look Snippy,
In the first place I do not think you should ask anybody here or elsewhere whether God will forgive you for committing a sin. Nobody, not even the Church's highest hyerarchies, can anticipate or advance what God may, will or want to do. At the very best, we can imagine that according to God's Commandments we may be punished or rewarded for our acts and behavior over here.
Other than that, is a very high presumption for anyone to affirm that God WILL do or WILL not do that.
As for your tattoo, in my church (Roman Catholic), tatooing is not considered, to the best of my knowledge a sin, but nevertheless, to tattoo your arm with a cross does look like a lack of respect for the cross.
If you wish to carry the symbol of the Cross with you, why don't you buy yourself a chain with a hanging Cross in it, and put it around your nexk? I, for one, wear one.
Gromitt 82

[gromitt82]

The cross is a pagan symbol, therefore not of christian origin, and it doesn't matter whether the tat is a cross, tick or dash, true christians would not need to mark themselves permanently with ink to prove their faith to God or anyone else.

Insofar the symbol of the Cross was already used in ancient Babilon, and that crosses in different shapes and sizes have been used by a number of civilizations, whether in Asian or in Precolombine Mesoamerican cultures, it is correct to consider crosses a pagan symbol.
However, our colleague is not referring to any of said symbols but, clearly, to the Christian symbol of the Cross, where Jesus Christ was crucified.
In this respect, therefore, the Cross is not a pagan symbol, but a Christian one.
On the other hand, I agree with you that we Christians do not need to mark ourselves in any way with crosses or any other symbols. Another primitive Christian sign is a fish (ictus) and I do not think anybody may think of tattooing him/herself with a fish as a symbol of his/her faith.
By the same token, if he/her likes to do it, let him/her do it and be happy about it.
I think it is not worse than the present fad of piercing all parts of the body to hang all kinds of custom jewelry or gimmicks...
Gromitt82

[dwashbur]

to tatoo your arm with a cross does look like a lack of respect for the cross.

Why?

[gromitt82]

Why?

Because, as I said, at least for the Catholic world, it represents the symbol of the redemption of Mankind through the crucifixion of Christ. And I daresay that this is important enough to deserve a certain amount of respect and devotion.
Of course, you can do whatever you want and no Catholics will threaten your life if you choose to tattoo a cross in your arm or elsewhere in your body. Be my guest!
That is one of the differences between Christianity and other religions, as Islam, for one.
We, Catholics can be molested, insulted, provoked and offended without any risk of violent reaction on our side.
To a certain extent, it seems we like to turn the other cheek when someone strikes us...

Gromitt82

[dwashbur]

Because, as I said, at least for the Catholic world, it represents the symbol of the redemption of Mankind through the crucifixion of Christ. And I daresay that this is important enough to deserve a certain amount of respect and devotion.

Um, if you read the original post, respect and devotion are the whole idea behind getting the tattoo. Yes, it's a symbol of redemption through Christ. So why shouldn't this person wear it proudly on their arm? You have not answered the question. All you've done is show your own prejudice.

[gromitt82]

Um, if you read the original post, respect and devotion are the whole idea behind getting the tattoo. Yes, it's a symbol of redemption through Christ. So why shouldn't this person wear it proudly on their arm? You have not answered the question. All you've done is show your own prejudice.

I think I have! Whether I have shown my own prejudice or not, is simply a matter of opinion. You believe so and I do not.
Muslims and Jews are not allowed to show any identification of God. In fact, Jews cannot even write the name of GOD...
We, Catholics, are too lenient about that. In many protestants churches you want see anything but the naked Cross without Christ.
I think it deserves a respect and in my opinion a taattoo is not the best sample of respect.
Still, if you think the contrary, be my guest!
Gromitt82

[dwashbur]

I think it deserves a respect and in my opinion a taattoo is not the best sample of respect.
Still, if you think the contrary, be my guest!
Gromitt82

My question was, WHY it not respectful? You haven't answered that. "It's just my opinion" is not an answer; I would hope your opinion is based on something more than a whim.

Furthermore, you said

to tattoo your arm with a cross does look like a lack of respect for the cross.

This is not expressed as an opinion, but as a statement of fact. I asked why and you retreated into "it's just my opinion." I'm asking the basis of that opinion.

Granted, you did answer the original question to the effect that the RCC doesn't consider it a sin. Thank you for that.

On a side note, you keep making a big deal of the fact that you're Catholic. I think you'll find that most folks here couldn't care less. I for one don't care if you're Catholic, Lutheran, Metho-Presy-Bapti-Cost, or Joe's Church and Vacuum Cleaner Repair. The question remains the same: why do you consider a cross tattoo on the arm disrespectful? Doesn't it all come down to the attitude and motivation of the wearer?

[gromitt82]

My question was, WHY it not respectful? You haven't answered that. "It's just my opinion" is not an answer; I would hope your opinion is based on something more than a whim.

Furthermore, you said


This is not expressed as an opinion, but as a statement of fact. I asked why and you retreated into "it's just my opinion." I'm asking the basis of that opinion.

Granted, you did answer the original question to the effect that the RCC doesn't consider it a sin. Thank you for that.

On a side note, you keep making a big deal of the fact that you're Catholic. I think you'll find that most folks here couldn't care less. I for one don't care if you're Catholic, Lutheran, Metho-Presy-Bapti-Cost, or Joe's Church and Vacuum Cleaner Repair. The question remains the same: why do you consider a cross tattoo on the arm disrespectful? Doesn't it all come down to the attitude and motivation of the wearer?

OK, since you seem to like arguing, let’s argue.

It is a sheer waste of time but, at least, I will practice my English, which I cannot do as often as I do with other languages.

In the first place, I am not making a big deal of my faith. I have just stated I belong to the RCC for when I participate in a forum where there may be other colleagues belonging to all kind of Christian denominations, I may as well be precise about mine.

It seems to me, however, that it is you WHO MAKE A BIG DEAL OF THE FACT THAT YOU ARE AN ATHEIST, by the way you point out (most inconsiderately I would add), that you could not care less about a number of Christian denominations, including Joe’s Church and Vacuum Cleaner Repair.

In my opinion, this attitude tends to show:
a) Your educational level leaves a lot to be desired
b) You are probably an atheist
c) If not, you must be a Muslim
d) In both cases, I wonder what you are doing in a Christian forum like this.

Continuing with the argument of the tattoo, I will only add that I consider it disrespectful for exactly the same reason that I would consider disrespectful to tattoo in any part of my body a picture of my mother.

It is just a matter of good taste and respect as far as I am concerned.

Obviously, you do not share this opinion.

For me respect, reflects an attitude of deference, admiration or esteem and this stance forces me to reject the tattoo of a Cross or my mother’s picture, in my arm.

On the other hand, in good taste, for me, implies the acceptance of generally esthetic standards in manners and conduct.

I know you may find it difficult to understand this reasoning, as unfortunately, in modern times, both respect and good manners and taste have been degraded to great extent.

But I belong in the group of “folks” who were brought up and educated in a different way to what seems to be in fashion now-a-days.

Cordially,
Gromitt82

[dwashbur]

OK, since you seem to like arguing, let’s argue.

It is a sheer waste of time but, at least, I will practice my English, which I cannot do as often as I do with other languages.

Asking a legitimate question about the basis of your preference constitutes liking to argue. Oooookay.

In the first place, I am not making a big deal of my faith. I have just stated I belong to the RCC for when I participate in a forum where there may be other colleagues belonging to all kind of Christian denominations, I may as well be precise about mine.

You mentioned it no less than five times in three posts. If that's not making a big deal of your Catholicism, I don't want to know what is.

It seems to me, however, that it is you WHO MAKE A BIG DEAL OF THE FACT THAT YOU ARE AN ATHEIST,

Wow. Just... wow.

by the way you point out (most inconsiderately I would add), that you could not care less about a number of Christian denominations, including Joe’s Church and Vacuum Cleaner Repair.

Okay, let me spell this out for you:


J O K E

It's called pushing something to its ultimate absurdity for the sake of humor. If you don't get that, it's not my fault. I find it astonishing that cracking a dumb joke makes me an atheist. I could squawk to the moderators about such blatant abuse, but I choose to laugh instead.

In my opinion, this attitude tends to show:
a) Your educational level leaves a lot to be desired
b) You are probably an atheist
c) If not, you must be a Muslim
d) In both cases, I wonder what you are doing in a Christian forum like this.

Go read my profile before you make such ludicrous accusations.

Continuing with the argument of the tattoo, I will only add that I consider it disrespectful for exactly the same reason that I would consider disrespectful to tattoo in any part of my body a picture of my mother.

Then you must have a pretty low opinion of your mother. I know plenty of people who have done just that as a way to honor and remember their mothers. You are telling them all, with a handful of keystrokes, that their tributes to their mothers are actually disrespectful. Why don't you go spit in their faces while you're at it? If you don't want to do it, fine. But your attitude says you pass judgment on everybody else based on your own narrow-minded opinion. You do not have the right to do that, because you don't know what you're talking about.

It is just a matter of good taste and respect as far as I am concerned.

Obviously, you do not share this opinion.

I agree that good taste and respect are good things. I do not agree that your opinion is the baseline against which all such matters are to be judged. Earlier you suggested wearing a cross around someone's neck. There is no qualitative difference between that and having a picture of a cross on one's arm. It's displaying an image of a cross. Once again, you are displaying your own baseless prejudice, nothing more.

For me respect, reflects an attitude of deference, admiration or esteem and this stance forces me to reject the tattoo of a Cross or my mother’s picture, in my arm.

For you, that's fine. But you do not have the right to judge anyone else's attitude toward the cross or the Lord who died on it based on your own knee-jerk opinion. For that matter, you do not have the right to judge my friend who has a picture of his dead mother on his arm. It's a mark of very high respect to be willing to place such an image where it can always be seen and the person or event can always be brought to mind. If you don't want to do it, then don't. But don't tell someone else they're being disrespectful, because you have no idea what's in their heart. You don't even have an idea what's in my easily-accessible profile, which is why you keep making such wrong-headed comments.

On the other hand, in good taste, for me, implies the acceptance of generally esthetic standards in manners and conduct.

"generally esthetic" is a meaningless phrase. If you mean, generally-accepted standards of good taste and conduct, then you're the one who's wrong, because attitudes toward things like tattoos have changed drastically. The generally-accepted view is much more lenient and accepting than yours is, so you are the one who's out of touch with the accepted norms.

I know you may find it difficult to understand this reasoning, as unfortunately, in modern times, both respect and good manners and taste have been degraded to great extent.

But I belong in the group of “folks” who were brought up and educated in a different way to what seems to be in fashion now-a-days.

I would be very interested to know how old you think I am. How you or I was brought up has nothing to do with it. What counts is who we are now and how we relate to the world around us. That seems to be something you're not very good at, at least if the above comments about me are any indication.

[gromitt82]

My dear and angry friend,

Let us go on with our interesting debate:

“Asking a legitimate question about the basis of your preference constitutes liking to argue. Oooookay.�
To avoid unnecessary discussions, I shall simply copy forwith the Dictionary Thesaurus definition of “to argue�
v.tr.
1. To put forth reasons for or against; debate: "It is time to stop arguing tax-rate reductions and to enact them" (Paul Craig Roberts).
2. To attempt to prove by reasoning; maintain or contend: The speaker argued that more immigrants should be admitted to the country.
3. To give evidence of; indicate: "Similarities cannot always be used to argue descent" (Isaac Asimov).
4. To persuade or influence (another), as by presenting reasons: argued the clerk into lowering the price.
v.intr.
1. To put forth reasons for or against something: argued for dismissal of the case; argued against an immediate counterattack.
2. To engage in a quarrel; dispute.
No further comments needed.
No supplementary clarification re. my Catholicism, which you seem so much to resent...

“I find it astonishing that cracking a dumb joke makes me an atheist. I could squawk to the moderators about such blatant abuse, but I choose to laugh instead�

When someone says he couldn't care less about Catholicism and a other Christian denominations, as you did in your past answer the other day, I think it is legitimate to wonder what kind of faith that person has, if any! On the other hand, “cracking a dumb joke about ANY religion� is not only a lack of respect for that religion, whichever, but also an abuse. Yet, I will follow your example and I will laugh instead, for laughing is very healthy.

Go read my profile before you make such ludicrous accusations

As a matter of principle, I do not read the profiles appearing in this type of forums or other social networks. I have been able to determine that some people just write down a number of assets which are only intended to satisfy their ego and impress others, which, of course, I am not saying it is your case…
On the other hand, saying that someone may be an Atheist or a Muslim is not ludicrously accusing him/her of anything, but just pointing out a possibility which, in my opinion, may be as insulting as if you would accuse me of being a Catholic. Alternatively, if you are a Christian, I do not understand how you dare “crack dumb jokes� regarding Catholics and pretend they are just for kicks…!


Then you must have a pretty low opinion of your mother. I know plenty of people who have done just that as a way to honor and remember their mothers. You are telling them all, with a handful of keystrokes, that their tributes to their mothers are actually disrespectful. Why don't you go spit in their faces while you're at it? If you don't want to do it, fine. But your attitude says you pass judgment on everybody else based on your own narrow-minded opinion. You do not have the right to do that, because you don't know what you're talking about.
Here again you distort what I am saying, and you do it purposely, to try to put in my lips words I have not said. In English, this is also called slandering, but perhaps you are unacquainted with the word and its implications. I am not denying the right your many friends or acquaintances have to tattoo crosses, pictures of their mothers or whatever they want to tattoo on their bodies. They are perfectly entitled to do that if they so wish. There are many persons too who are in favor of homosexual marriages (New York have recently approved a law in this respect) and there are thousands, all over the world, that proclaim their pro-abortion attitude. But it does not follow that I have to agree with them or that I cannot express what I think of these people.
I do not agree with either of them as I do not agree with the kind of tattoos we are talking about. I think I clearly say that “it is just a matter of good taste and respect as far as I am concerned� and I am as allowed to say so as you are to say the contrary.
I think that you, out of a certain amount of conceit, also tend to pretend that your opinion is the right one while other points of view are definitely wrong. When you say that “There is no qualitative difference between wearing a cross around someone's neck. And having a picture of a cross on one's arm.� You should add something like “in my opinion�, otherwise, you are asserting that only what you say is right…
But you do not have the right to judge anyone else's attitude toward the cross or the Lord who died on it based on your own knee-jerk opinion. For that matter, you do not have the right to judge my friend who has a picture of his dead mother on his arm.
I repeat I am not judging anyone else's attitude towards the cross or anything else, for what matters.
I think, using your own line, that this certainly is your “knee-jerk� opinion.
I said before I do not agree with either abortation or homosexual marriages. Unfortunately, both are legal in my country and in many States of yours. But I still say, along with thousands of others all over the world, that I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS FASHION. However, I DO NOT JUDGE THOSE WHO ARE IN FAVOR. There will be Someone Else Who will, eventually, judge them all right! SO why should I?
Nevertheless, you seem to believe you are entitled to not only judge my opinions but to transform them into value judgements I have never expressed. Slightly unfair, is not it?
BTW, I do not see why you have so much interest in boasting about your “easily-accesible profile�. Using the same words you used the other day, I could not care less. I'm 85 years, doctorate in Economics (emeritus) by the Sorbonne, in Paris; AB in Humanities and Theology, by the Eberhard Karls University, in Tübingen (Baden-Würtemberg), plus some other minor degrees that do not matter now. Can communicate in 6 languages, but I do not think it necessary to advertise it anywhere, like others obviously like to do.
“generally esthetic" is a meaningless phrase. If you mean, generally-accepted standards of good taste and conduct, then you're the one who's wrong, because attitudes toward things like tattoos have changed drastically. The generally-accepted view is much more lenient and accepting than yours is, so you are the one who's out of touch with the accepted norms.
If you think that “generally esthetic� is a meaningless phrase, I salute you for your English knowledge while advising you to contact the Merriam Webster directors because the definition is theirs. As for your statements that it is I who is wrong “, …because attitudes toward things like tattoos have changed drastically…� I am afraid you are a little bit too optimistic.
We are a bit more than 6 billion people in this beautiful world of ours and I have considerable doubts that the majority of this population has changed “drastically� their attitudes towards tattooing… I think you are somewhat influenced by the Hollywood series LA Ink…

I would be very interested to know how old you think I am. How you or I was brought up has nothing to do with it. What counts is who we are now and how we relate to the world around us. That seems to be something you're not very good at, at least if the above comments about me are any indication.

Last but not least, I do not know how old you are, though I have the feeling you are younger than I am, which is not difficult, bearing in mind my age and your apparent intolerance.
We old people are rather tolerant with our neighbors.

Furthermore, and contrary to what you opinate, how we have been brought up has a lot to do with what we may be now. Who we are now, depends to a large extent, upon the education we have received and upon our family background.

Reputed educational psychologists, such as the Swiss Jean William Fritz Piaget, has sustained and his colleagues still do, more than ever, “that most people understand and accept the fundamental role education plays in supporting our growth, conditioning our adult behavior and controlling our regeneration as a nation�

Cordially yours,
Gromitt 82

[gromitt82]

Quoting Dwashbur

My dear and angry friend,

Let us go on with our interesting debate:

“Asking a legitimate question about the basis of your preference constitutes liking to argue. Oooookay.�
To avoid unnecessary discussions, I shall simply copy forwith the Dictionary Thesaurus definition of “to argue�
v.tr.
1. To put forth reasons for or against; debate: "It is time to stop arguing tax-rate reductions and to enact them" (Paul Craig Roberts).
2. To attempt to prove by reasoning; maintain or contend: The speaker argued that more immigrants should be admitted to the country.
3. To give evidence of; indicate: "Similarities cannot always be used to argue descent" (Isaac Asimov).
4. To persuade or influence (another), as by presenting reasons: argued the clerk into lowering the price.
v.intr.
1. To put forth reasons for or against something: argued for dismissal of the case; argued against an immediate counterattack.
2. To engage in a quarrel; dispute.
No further comments needed.
No supplementary clarification re. my Catholicism, which you seem so much to resent...

“I find it astonishing that cracking a dumb joke makes me an atheist. I could squawk to the moderators about such blatant abuse, but I choose to laugh instead�

When someone says he couldn't care less about Catholicism and a other Christian denominations, as you did in your past answer the other day, I think it is legitimate to wonder what kind of faith that person has, if any! On the other hand, “cracking a dumb joke about ANY religion� is not only a lack of respect for that religion, whichever, but also an abuse. Yet, I will follow your example and I will laugh instead, for laughing is very healthy.

Go read my profile before you make such ludicrous accusations

As a matter of principle, I do not read the profiles appearing in this type of forums or other social networks. I have been able to determine that some people just write down a number of assets which are only intended to satisfy their ego and impress others, which, of course, I am not saying it is your case…
On the other hand, saying that someone may be an Atheist or a Muslim is not ludicrously accusing him/her of anything, but just pointing out a possibility which, in my opinion, may be as insulting as if you would accuse me of being a Catholic. Alternatively, if you are a Christian, I do not understand how you dare “crack dumb jokes� regarding Catholics and pretend they are just for kicks…!


Then you must have a pretty low opinion of your mother. I know plenty of people who have done just that as a way to honor and remember their mothers. You are telling them all, with a handful of keystrokes, that their tributes to their mothers are actually disrespectful. Why don't you go spit in their faces while you're at it? If you don't want to do it, fine. But your attitude says you pass judgment on everybody else based on your own narrow-minded opinion. You do not have the right to do that, because you don't know what you're talking about.
Here again you distort what I am saying, and you do it purposely, to try to put in my lips words I have not said. In English, this is also called slandering, but perhaps you are unacquainted with the word and its implications. I am not denying the right your many friends or acquaintances have to tattoo crosses, pictures of their mothers or whatever they want to tattoo on their bodies. They are perfectly entitled to do that if they so wish. There are many persons too who are in favor of homosexual marriages (New York have recently approved a law in this respect) and there are thousands, all over the world, that proclaim their pro-abortion attitude. But it does not follow that I have to agree with them or that I cannot express what I think of these people.
I do not agree with either of them as I do not agree with the kind of tattoos we are talking about. I think I clearly say that “it is just a matter of good taste and respect as far as I am concerned� and I am as allowed to say so as you are to say the contrary.
I think that you, out of a certain amount of conceit, also tend to pretend that your opinion is the right one while other points of view are definitely wrong. When you say that “There is no qualitative difference between wearing a cross around someone's neck. And having a picture of a cross on one's arm.� You should add something like “in my opinion�, otherwise, you are asserting that only what you say is right…
But you do not have the right to judge anyone else's attitude toward the cross or the Lord who died on it based on your own knee-jerk opinion. For that matter, you do not have the right to judge my friend who has a picture of his dead mother on his arm.
I repeat I am not judging anyone else's attitude towards the cross or anything else, for what matters.
I think, using your own line, that this certainly is your “knee-jerk� opinion.
I said before I do not agree with either abortation or homosexual marriages. Unfortunately, both are legal in my country and in many States of yours. But I still say, along with thousands of others all over the world, that I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS FASHION. However, I DO NOT JUDGE THOSE WHO ARE IN FAVOR. There will be Someone Else Who will, eventually, judge them all right! SO why should I?
Nevertheless, you seem to believe you are entitled to not only judge my opinions but to transform them into value judgements I have never expressed. Slightly unfair, is not it?
BTW, I do not see why you have so much interest in boasting about your “easily-accesible profile�. Using the same words you used the other day, I could not care less. I'm 85 years, doctorate in Economics (emeritus) by the Sorbonne, in Paris; AB in Humanities and Theology, by the Eberhard Karls University, in Tübingen (Baden-Würtemberg), plus some other minor degrees that do not matter now. Can communicate in 6 languages, but I do not think it necessary to advertise it anywhere, like others obviously like to do.
“generally esthetic" is a meaningless phrase. If you mean, generally-accepted standards of good taste and conduct, then you're the one who's wrong, because attitudes toward things like tattoos have changed drastically. The generally-accepted view is much more lenient and accepting than yours is, so you are the one who's out of touch with the accepted norms.
If you think that “generally esthetic� is a meaningless phrase, I salute you for your English knowledge while advising you to contact the Merriam Webster directors because the definition is theirs. As for your statements that it is I who is wrong “, …because attitudes toward things like tattoos have changed drastically…� I am afraid you are a little bit too optimistic.
We are a bit more than 6 billion people in this beautiful world of ours and I have considerable doubts that the majority of this population has changed “drastically� their attitudes towards tattooing… I think you are somewhat influenced by the Hollywood series LA Ink…

I would be very interested to know how old you think I am. How you or I was brought up has nothing to do with it. What counts is who we are now and how we relate to the world around us. That seems to be something you're not very good at, at least if the above comments about me are any indication.

Last but not least, I do not know how old you are, though I have the feeling you are younger than I am, which is not difficult, bearing in mind my age and your apparent intolerance.
We old people are rather tolerant with our neighbors.

Furthermore, and contrary to what you opinate, how we have been brought up has a lot to do with what we may be now. Who we are now, depends to a large extent, upon the education we have received and upon our family background.

Reputed educational psychologists, such as the Swiss Jean William Fritz Piaget, has sustained and his colleagues still do, more than ever, “that most people understand and accept the fundamental role education plays in supporting our growth, conditioning our adult behavior and controlling our regeneration as a nation�

Cordially yours,
Gromitt 82

[dwashbur]

Quoting Dwashbur

My dear and angry friend,

I don't know where you get the notion that I'm angry. I'm amused.

Let us go on with our interesting debate:

“Asking a legitimate question about the basis of your preference constitutes liking to argue. Oooookay.�
To avoid unnecessary discussions, I shall simply copy forwith the Dictionary Thesaurus definition of “to argue�

Nice waste of bandwidth. You know what I meant. And your comments implied "argue" in a negative sense. Quit dodging the ramifications of your own words.

[snip]

“I find it astonishing that cracking a dumb joke makes me an atheist. I could squawk to the moderators about such blatant abuse, but I choose to laugh instead�

When someone says he couldn't care less about Catholicism and a other Christian denominations, as you did in your past answer the other day, I think it is legitimate to wonder what kind of faith that person has, if any!

The arrogance of this statement defies description. Some of the best jokes I know about Catholicism come from my Catholic friends. It's a shame you can't enjoy your faith in such a way; you must be a very unhappy person.

On the other hand, “cracking a dumb joke about ANY religion� is not only a lack of respect for that religion, whichever, but also an abuse. Yet, I will follow your example and I will laugh instead, for laughing is very healthy.

Considering that the above makes no sense at all, I won't bother trying to comment.

Go read my profile before you make such ludicrous accusations

As a matter of principle, I do not read the profiles appearing in this type of forums or other social networks. I have been able to determine that some people just write down a number of assets which are only intended to satisfy their ego and impress others, which, of course, I am not saying it is your case…

Do you have any idea what you just said? "I don't bother finding out about people because they're going to lie anyway, so I just draw my own assumptions based on..." apparently, nothing. Are you for real?

On the other hand, saying that someone may be an Atheist or a Muslim is not ludicrously accusing him/her of anything, but just pointing out a possibility which, in my opinion, may be as insulting as if you would accuse me of being a Catholic. Alternatively, if you are a Christian, I do not understand how you dare “crack dumb jokes� regarding Catholics and pretend they are just for kicks…!

You are still making no sense. It's all right for you to accuse me of being an atheist or a Muslim because you don't like the fact that I use humor to get my point across; but it's wrong for me to call you a Catholic even though you referred to yourself that way five times in three posts? I have no idea what you just said, and I seriously doubt whether you do, either.

Then you must have a pretty low opinion of your mother. I know plenty of people who have done just that as a way to honor and remember their mothers. You are telling them all, with a handful of keystrokes, that their tributes to their mothers are actually disrespectful. Why don't you go spit in their faces while you're at it? If you don't want to do it, fine. But your attitude says you pass judgment on everybody else based on your own narrow-minded opinion. You do not have the right to do that, because you don't know what you're talking about.
Here again you distort what I am saying, and you do it purposely, to try to put in my lips words I have not said. In English, this is also called slandering, but perhaps you are unacquainted with the word and its implications.

You're the one slandering people, because you set yourself up in judgment over them and their motives. But I've noticed a lot of projection going on in your posts; maybe you should look that word up in a psychology book.

I am not denying the right your many friends or acquaintances have to tattoo crosses, pictures of their mothers or whatever they want to tattoo on their bodies. They are perfectly entitled to do that if they so wish. There are many persons too who are in favor of homosexual marriages (New York have recently approved a law in this respect) and there are thousands, all over the world, that proclaim their pro-abortion attitude. But it does not follow that I have to agree with them or that I cannot express what I think of these people.
I do not agree with either of them as I do not agree with the kind of tattoos we are talking about. I think I clearly say that “it is just a matter of good taste and respect as far as I am concerned� and I am as allowed to say so as you are to say the contrary.

You don't deny their right, but you do declare them to have no taste or respect. No matter how much you try to polish it, that's what you're saying. You are saying "My opinion is the baseline against which all good taste and respect are to be judged, and these people have been found lacking."

I think that you, out of a certain amount of conceit, also tend to pretend that your opinion is the right one while other points of view are definitely wrong. When you say that “There is no qualitative difference between wearing a cross around someone's neck. And having a picture of a cross on one's arm.� You should add something like “in my opinion�, otherwise, you are asserting that only what you say is right…

There's that projection again. Either one is displaying a cross. You have not shown otherwise. Unless you can do so, I will accept your apology and your admission that you were wrong.

But you do not have the right to judge anyone else's attitude toward the cross or the Lord who died on it based on your own knee-jerk opinion. For that matter, you do not have the right to judge my friend who has a picture of his dead mother on his arm.
I repeat I am not judging anyone else's attitude towards the cross or anything else, for what matters.

Declaring their use of a tattoo of the cross to be in bad taste and disrespectful isn't judging. Uh-huh. Get your dictionary out again. That's exactly what it is.

I think, using your own line, that this certainly is your “knee-jerk� opinion.
I said before I do not agree with either abortation or homosexual marriages. Unfortunately, both are legal in my country and in many States of yours. But I still say, along with thousands of others all over the world, that I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS FASHION. However, I DO NOT JUDGE THOSE WHO ARE IN FAVOR. There will be Someone Else Who will, eventually, judge them all right! SO why should I?
Nevertheless, you seem to believe you are entitled to not only judge my opinions but to transform them into value judgements I have never expressed. Slightly unfair, is not it?

You just equated your opinion with God's. You also equated getting a tattoo of the Cross with abortion and homosexual marriages. But you're not judging. Oh, sure.

BTW, I do not see why you have so much interest in boasting about your “easily-accesible profile�. Using the same words you used the other day, I could not care less. I'm 85 years, doctorate in Economics (emeritus) by the Sorbonne, in Paris; AB in Humanities and Theology, by the Eberhard Karls University, in Tübingen (Baden-Würtemberg), plus some other minor degrees that do not matter now. Can communicate in 6 languages, but I do not think it necessary to advertise it anywhere, like others obviously like to do.

I can see why you don't talk about those things in a Christianity forum, because for discussing Christianity they have no bearing. My degrees do. I told you to check my profile because you attacked my beliefs, my education, and my age, while knowing nothing at all about me. I suggested that you find out something about me before you make such accusations. Apparently, asking you to understand what you're talking about constitutes "boasting." So be it. I'm boasting: understand what you're talking about before you attempt to abuse me any further.

[snip]

I think you are somewhat influenced by the Hollywood series LA Ink…

Once again, you spout off without knowledge. I know nothing at all about the "Hollywood series" you mention, because I don't watch television. Again, I suggest you understand what you're talking about before you say something.

I would be very interested to know how old you think I am. How you or I was brought up has nothing to do with it. What counts is who we are now and how we relate to the world around us. That seems to be something you're not very good at, at least if the above comments about me are any indication.

Last but not least, I do not know how old you are, though I have the feeling you are younger than I am, which is not difficult, bearing in mind my age and your apparent intolerance.
We old people are rather tolerant with our neighbors.

Surely you jest. You're the one being intolerant of current attitudes toward tattoing. Again I suggest you look up the psychological meaning of "projection."

Furthermore, and contrary to what you opinate,

"opinate"??

This is getting nowhere. Feel free to have the last word; I'm sure it will be reasonably incomprehensible.

[Athos]

To Grommit and DW -

I've now spent 20-30 precious minutes of my life reading the stuff each of you has posted.

Clearly, there's a bit of a language problem here, but, more importantly, you happen to be two of the best posters on this board.

It's interesting to follow how something as insignificant and basically silly as a tattoo can lead to such flame - even among co-religionists, (Christian).

From one who has often been a point of controversy here, I hope the two of you can just stop arguing, shake hands, and find those important areas where you agree.

You each bring a lot to the table and the thoughtful ones here are the better for your contributions.

[dwashbur]

Athos,
Thanks for the kind words. I've already stated my intention to bow out of that particular discussion with grommit. It's clearly getting off the actual topic.

[Riot]

Annnnnyway...

Is a cross tattoo a sin? I don't think so...
People wear cross'es as jewellery don't they? A lot of christains wear cross necklaces as a symbol they are christian. People wear tattoo as a symbol. I know a guy in my church that has a cross on this forearm and I've seen it several times - no one has said anything to him.

[gromitt82]

I don't know where you get the notion that I'm angry. I'm amused.

This is getting nowhere. Feel free to have the last word; I'm sure it will be reasonably incomprehensible.

• Συγχαρητήρια

My dear DLW,

First of all, let me tell you I have finally consulted your profile and I have been very pleasantly surprised by your credentials.

In the first place, I salute in you a linguistic scholar, as I think I am too, but, in your case, of a much higher level. While there are thousands that speak and/or are fluent in some modern languages, as I may be, I do not think there are so many who are conversant in Biblical languages as Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, as you are!

Holy mackerel!

As you no doubt know, in the cloister of the Church of the Pater Noster, in the Mount of Olives, in Jerusalem, the Lord’s Prayer appears written in some 60 languages, amongst them, in the original Aramaic Jesus used with his disciples.

Each time I have gone to Israel I have bemoaned that I could not read the Lord’s Prayer in either one of the 3 Biblical languages appearing there… especially, in Aramaic.

As a lover of languages, I must say I envy you with all my heart for this rather extraordinary feat. Now I can understand why you can surely boast of belonging into a very rare category of people.

One of my best friends –Mosen Deig, former bishop of Solsona- who died some 7 years ago, could read Aramaic –although he was not an expert- and he had always told me it was a beautiful language.

It had to be. It was chosen by Jesus…!

I was helping my friend, to the best of my possibilities -which are not many- in his arduous task of translating into Catalan, Saint Thomas Aquinas’ “Summa Theologica”.

A pity, we could not finish that challenge because of his premature death…!

But stop my being carried away by divagations nobody is interested in…

What I wanted to tell you is how pleased I am to see that we are both on the same boat, i.e. we are both Christians… Not only, you are undoubtedly a better one than I am (not difficult, anyway), for, at least, you are a learned person who is spending his life by digging into the origins of our Religion, which is a most praiseworthy mission.

Consequently, as of now, I quit our previous debate which no longer interests me.

I am sure you will agree with me that it is a sheer waste of time for us to get involved into some silly question like “tattooing”… when we both have other better things to do!

You have your ideas about tattoos and I have mine. And that is it!
Besides, It may well be that I am all wet, for I happen to be wrong more often than not. II do not care admitting it, though.

Man was created imperfect, and I am a good instance of that…

On the other hand, as I said before, I am sure you have much better things to do than going on with our meaningless quarrel.

As far as I am concerned, and if nothing else, I must pay attention to another job where I am involved since a few years ago.

The “Romanitische Abteilung” of the German Fribourg University, has been working on a project which investigates the origins of the Catalan and Spanish languages. As you know, both are Romanesque languages with a common denominator, i.e. their Latin origin. The point lies, however, in determining whether Catalan influenced old Spanish (Castillian), way back in the 9th Century or if it was the other way round. I am helping from the Catalan side, this language being my mother language. This has no consequential significance except for some Catalan politicians. Thus, why some of us are keen on trying to prove whether this is true or not.

Consequently, and not wanting any more discussions over inconsequential matters, I present you my sincere apologies for whatever disturbance I may have caused you.

Best regards, and as I have tried to write you at the beginning in my almost non existing Greek, Congratulations!
Gromitt82

[gromitt82]

To Grommit and DW -

I've now spent 20-30 precious minutes of my life reading the stuff each of you has posted.

Clearly, there's a bit of a language problem here, but, more importantly, you happen to be two of the best posters on this board.

It's interesting to follow how something as insignificant and basically silly as a tattoo can lead to such flame - even among co-religionists, (Christian).

From one who has often been a point of controversy here, I hope the two of you can just stop arguing, shake hands, and find those important areas where you agree.

You each bring a lot to the table and the thoughtful ones here are the better for your contributions.

Dear Athos (are you a relative of Aramis or Portos?)

Thank you for your fine piece of wisdom! It is obvious to me now I have let myself being involved into a silly debate as you point out. However, one of my many faults, defects or flaws is that I tend to dislike being defeated in any intellectual debate of sorts.

However, the danger of further debating on this subject is gone. Common sense -which happens to be less common than most people think- has come back aided by the fact I have been able to trace down some of the credentials my previous opponent has.

With the result I have sent him a thread which you may see, if you wish, right here.

I am sorry for the valuable minutes you have lost trying to understand how 2 perfectly normal people have been able to waste so much time on something "silly" as tattoos!

Gromitt82