4 thoughts on “A Tattood Jesus?”

  1. Actually, there are a number of fallacies committed in this article.
    1. Equivocation. The term “marks” is used in various ways. In one sense they are attributes of a person’s character. In another they are visible displays on a person’s body. To say that a Christian should have certain marks (in the character sense) rather than these other marks (in the inked display sense) is to equivocate on the term “marks.”
    2. You can also interpret the above as either a false dichotomy or a category mistake.
    3. False appeal to a stereotype. When Colson says that a tattoo displays a person’s highest allegiance, he is making a false generalization–or at least an unwarranted one.
    4. No. 3 could also be interpreted as a “straw man.”
    5. There’s also an appeal to laughter (emotion, or an unwarranted reductio ad absurdum) in the very title. Would Jesus Get a Tattoo? That’s not necessarily relevant. Jesus would also not have posted opiniated articles on the internet.
    BTW, I have neither tattoos nor piercings.

  2. Ooh, nice Win. I had not thought of equivocation but can hardly argue.
    Number 2 is clear; at least to me and to you!
    Again, did not think of #3 either. Good find!! #4 is a permutation of #3 I suppose.
    #5 is a keen swipe!

    What about genetic fallacy, by indicating those who practice tattoos on their bodies today mean the same as the pagans of old?

    And, as my daughter pointed out, Paul the Apostle seemed to have outer markings of his allegiance, too (Gal 6:17).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *