NationStates Jolt Archive

I found out about this tonight at church, apparently it offends.

here is a news-type story about it and a protest
http://www.tfp.org/what_we_do/index/blasphemy_dress_up_jesus.htm





what do you guys think? offensive? funny? stupid?

hehe, that's fun.

I found out about this tonight at church, apparently it offends.

here is a news-type story about it and a protest
http://www.tfp.org/what_we_do/index/blasphemy_dress_up_jesus.htm


here is the site where you can try it out

http://www.jesusdressup.com/


what do you guys think? offensive? funny? stupid?

You call yourself Christian? :confused:

ok thats something i don't see ever day

You call yourself Christian? :confused:

you didn't know that :(

you didn't know that :(

Eh I don't find it offensive. I'm surprised some Christians don't hate the fact that Jesus is wearing nothing but a loin cloth.

you didn't know that :(

I distinctly remember you saying you were in a thread about the purpose of life. And I also remember how people called you a "the kind of fundie that isn't violent" on and anti-fundie thread.

Eh I don't find it offensive. I'm surprised some Christians don't hate the fact that Jesus is wearing nothing but a loin cloth.

I don't generally like Jesus depictions, not that they offend me, I just find them unnecessary.

I distinctly remember you saying you were in a thread about the purpose of life.

so I think I don't understand your confusion :confused:

That was... slightly disturbing, mainly because of my bad fashsion sense though.

That was... slightly disturbing, mainly because of my bad fashsion sense though.
SLIGHTLY?! :eek:

That was QUITE disturbing. :p

Now that was fascinating and suprisingly addictive!:D :eek:

Eh I don't find it offensive. I'm surprised some Christians don't hate the fact that Jesus is wearing nothing but a loin cloth.
I am offended by the whittie tighties, but that's just on general principle.

SLIGHTLY?! :eek:

That was QUITE disturbing. :p
You forget, I live in Japan. After seeing Harujuku... ;)

That game is fun. :cool:

You forget, I live in Japan. After seeing Harujuku... ;)

what can you say to that

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y79/Goomg/other/created/gh.jpg

so I think I don't understand your confusion :confused:

Here, I’ll help you understand his statement, it’s surprisingly simple actually, I’m surprised you missed it…

He remembers reading about some Roman soldiers who played dice for Jesus Clothes, and he remember reading about people mocking Jesus and laughing while they watched Jesus suffering to death on the cross before them…

Matthew 27:27-31
Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the governor's headquarters, and they gathered the whole battalion before him. And they stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on his head and put a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him, they mocked him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" And they spit on him and took the reed and struck him on the head. And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the robe and put his own clothes on him and led him away to crucify him.

Matthew 27:35
And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots.

Matthew 27:41-43
So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, 'I am the Son of God.'"


And now he sees here someone has decide that they would like to show all of the non-believers here how they too can mock Jesus on the cross and play games with his clothes while he dies on the cross symbolically. And guess what, it’s not even one of the many anti-Christians in this forum that go out of their way to mock Jesus and mock the belief of salvation thorough Jesus’ blood on the cross on a daily basis, but no, it’s not one of them, it’s Smunkeeville of all people, showing them how they too can participate in mocking our Lord during his crucifixion. To him it was surprising and unexpected and he was shocked by it that you posted it because he thought you were a Christian. For me it was disappointing to see you of all people posting this stuff that surves no purpose other than for the non-believers enjoyment in mocking Jesus on the cross.

Here, I’ll help you understand his statement, it’s surprisingly simple actually, I’m surprised you missed it… *snip*
... B4K4...

The point being....? Not offensive, just.... boring.

so I sent the link to my roommate, who realized they sell them in fridge magnet form...


we're getting this set:
http://www.normalbobsmith.com/store/fridgemagnetpage_eviljdu.jpg

... B4K4...

o0h! u ar3z s00 1337!!!111!! u 4TW, n07…

Ua jju ra go

Here, I’ll help you understand his statement, it’s surprisingly simple actually, I’m surprised you missed it…
....<snip>......
.

I seriously, seriously doubt any non believers are going to buy that doll to mock jesus, they wouldn't waste their money on it. You really are being paranoid there.

And lay off Smunkee, she's one of the ones that give Christians a good name.

That's not offensive. Offensive is a game in which you get to crucify Jesus.

I seriously, seriously doubt any non believers are going to buy that doll to mock jesus, they wouldn't waste their money on it. You really are being paranoid there.

And lay off Smunkee, she's one of the ones that give Christians a good name.

Post 17 proved you wrong already, why did you post?

o0h! u ar3z s00 1337!!!111!! u 4TW, n07…

Ua jju ra go

Words alone cannot express the sheer fucktardery of that post.

Post 17 proved you wrong already, why did you post?

Because that post is a clear dig AT the kind of Paranoia I'm refering to. If people didnt make such a fuss and bother things like that would get boring very fast.

o0h! u ar3z s00 1337!!!111!! u 4TW, n07…

Ua jju ra go
Fine, fine... バカ。

All better?

Fine, fine... バカ。

All better?

プーツワヅルさんはとってもばかですね

プーツワヅルさんはとってもばかですね
そですよ。 ;)

プーツワヅルさんはとってもばかですね

そですよ。 ;)

*looks around awkwardly and nervously untill translator arrives*


;)

Fine, fine... バカ。

All better?

Sure. ろば

so I sent the link to my roommate, who realized they sell them in fridge magnet form...


we're getting this set:
http://www.normalbobsmith.com/store/fridgemagnetpage_eviljdu.jpg

*steals*

Sure. ろば
If you're going to trade insults, you should at least attempt to make sure that said language actually uses the same insult instead of attempting to use Bablefish and hope it comes out ok.

If you're going to trade insults, you should at least attempt to make sure that said language actually uses the same insult instead of attempting to use Bablefish and hope it comes out ok.

What'd he try to say?

I believe it was Ass, but what he actually said was "donkey"

I believe it was Ass, but what he actually said was "donkey"

Haha.

What'd he try to say?
I believe he was TRYING for ass. He GOT donkey, and Japanese doesn't even use that particular insult so it really sounds (reads?) strange.

Edit: Got beaten to it. Nice to have another Japanese speaker on the board (as opposed to my poor skills and Distilla's very good ones).

I believe he was TRYING for ass. He GOT donkey, and Japanese doesn't even use that particular insult so it really sounds (reads?) strange.

Edit: Got beaten to it. Nice to have another Japanese speaker on the board (as opposed to my poor skills and Distilla's very good ones).

Sorry.. I should have left it for you :( /me punishes self for stealing your moment
:)

I found out about this tonight at church, apparently it offends.

here is a news-type story about it and a protest
http://www.tfp.org/what_we_do/index/blasphemy_dress_up_jesus.htm


here is the site where you can try it out

http://www.jesusdressup.com/


what do you guys think? offensive? funny? stupid?
Shit that's old, like 10 years old+ old, i mean really really really really really really old old.:eek:

I believe it was Ass, but what he actually said was "donkey"
He might have had better luck if he'd actually used arse.-_-

I find it funny, but just because it'd cause so many of my neighbors to drop dead in some sort of seizure.

Maybe because I grew up as an atheist, but I've never been able to understand why people would insist everyone treat their beliefs with kid gloves, especially if they don't share them. My neighbors certainly don't treat my beliefs that way. Oh well. I'm just feeling a bit bitchy tonight.

Meh. The fact that some Christians choose to wear a idol on thier neck that depits a generally graphic display of the death of Jesus is more offensive to me.

It doesn't strike me as surprising that people set up an graven image and then find that such an image is used in a way they don't like. Perhaps God saw that one coming and, thus, we have the reason for the requirement that we not do so.

How dare you, Smunkee? How dare you even suggest that mocking their graven idol isn't something you condemn? You're supposed to support molded gods just like the Bible says. Thus sayith PootWaddle, thus sayith the Lord.

Or perhaps, mocking a graven idol is just that and we could just realize that Jesus and the images that people worship are not the same thing.

Am I the only one who tried to take of Jesus' tighty whiteys?

Agreed with Jocabia.


To the protests? I think the proper response would be confiscating them... and sending to kindergartens.

Agreed with Jocabia.


To the protests? I think the proper response would be confiscating them... and sending to kindergartens.

I for one would have loved to stand acroos the street from them with a "Free Barrabas" sign. Then laugh when they got all indignant and explain how they'd all be doomed to Hell if Jesus had been freed. Then laugh some more.

Am I the only one who tried to take of Jesus' tighty whiteys?

Nope. :D

And that's funfunfunfunfunfunfunfunfunfunfunfunfunfunfun!!!
I think that magent would make an excellent present for some of my friends

we used to have a 'jesus on wheels' at my old flat. he had movable arms and everything. he was no match for darth vader though. in fact, i think he even got beaten by the clock-work penguin - face down in some curry he was! :eek:

we used to have a 'jesus on wheels' at my old flat. he had movable arms and everything. he was no match for darth vader though. in fact, i think he even got beaten by the clock-work penguin - face down in some curry he was! :eek:

Well, it's Jesus, he's not exactly a fighter.

Well, it's Jesus, he's not exactly a fighter.

just goes to prove that turning the other cheek leads to all cheeks hurting and getting a bit mucky. one of his arms fell off too.

just goes to prove that turning the other cheek leads to all cheeks hurting and getting a bit mucky. one of his arms fell off too.

That might help with not getting crucified. If his arms and legs fall off he could escape!

Hehehe, Dress-Up Jesus is funny :)

... B4K4...

You sank my battleship :(

I found out about this tonight at church, apparently it offends.

here is a news-type story about it and a protest
http://www.tfp.org/what_we_do/index/blasphemy_dress_up_jesus.htm


here is the site where you can try it out

http://www.jesusdressup.com/


what do you guys think? offensive? funny? stupid?
I don't consider it any more offensive than the Dress Up David magnet sets. Meh.

What I find offensive is the individuals who choose to wear or display extreme torture porn in public, under the guise of "religious belief." If somebody wanted to put up a display of a human person being subjected to gruesome torture for secular reasons, these same "Christians" would scream and cry about the poor poor children and their poor tender eyes. Hell, they scream and cry about the poor poor children if there is a bared booby anywhere near by. But a mangled human body being brutalized...now THAT is totally appropriate. :rolleyes:

That might help with not getting crucified. If his arms and legs fall off he could escape!

lol! that's awful!:eek: :D

maybe that's why he was so keen on fraternising with lepers.. ;)

(too far?)

Hell, they scream and cry about the poor poor children if there is a bared booby anywhere near by.
http://www.galapagosonline.com/Galapagos_Natural_History/Birds_and_Animals/Birds/Redfoot.jpg
:eek:

lol! that's awful!:eek: :D

maybe that's why he was so keen on fraternising with lepers.. ;)

(too far?)

Not far enough, if anything. Maybe this is why the bible doesn't mention Jesus getting any. He spent too much time with the lepers and lost something.......

I can see how it would be offensive to some people. But I think they realy should have more important stuff to moan about.

I can see how it would be offensive to some people. But I think they realy should have more important stuff to moan about.

More important than jesus in a mini-skirt?

Not far enough, if anything. Maybe this is why the bible doesn't mention Jesus getting any. He spent too much time with the lepers and lost something.......

hahahahaha!!!! :D

Before I started Jesus was wearing a loin cloth....when i finished jesus was a leprauchaun with a rabbits head wearing suspenders and boxer shorts which said kiss me. He also had wings.

Blasphemy...
Blas for you...
Blas for everybody in the room...

Before I started Jesus was wearing a loin cloth....when i finished jesus was a leprauchaun with a rabbits head wearing suspenders and boxer shorts which said kiss me. He also had wings.

And people question how this is blasphemous?

And people question how this is blasphemous?

Hey, if I was being crucified, I'd want people to dress me up a bit. It'd take my mind off things.
Always look on the bright side of life...

And people question how this is blasphemous?

No, people question how this is OFFENSIVE. To me, failure to be blasphemous is offensive. :D

Meh. The fact that some Christians choose to wear a idol on thier neck that depits a generally graphic display of the death of Jesus is more offensive to me.

Here Jocabia shows us he's angry...

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/killrkat.gif

It doesn't strike me as surprising that people set up an graven image and then find that such an image is used in a way they don't like. Perhaps God saw that one coming and, thus, we have the reason for the requirement that we not do so.

Here Jocabia builds us a strawman...

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/strawman.jpg

How dare you, Smunkee? How dare you even suggest that mocking their graven idol isn't something you condemn? You're supposed to support molded gods just like the Bible says. Thus sayith PootWaddle, thus sayith the Lord.

Here Jocabia attacks his strawman...

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/attacking_strawman.jpg

Or perhaps, mocking a graven idol is just that and we could just realize that Jesus and the images that people worship are not the same thing.

Here Jocabia finishes off his strawman...

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/burning_strawman.jpg


We should all applaud such a fine show...

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/applause.jpg

Here Jocabia shows us he's angry...

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/killrkat.gif



Here Jocabia builds us a strawman...

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/strawman.jpg



Here Jocabia attacks his strawman...

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/attacking_strawman.jpg



Here Jocabia finishes off his strawman...

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/burning_strawman.jpg


We should all applaud such a fine show...

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/applause.jpg

Um, Poot? You realize that this whole post of yours pretty much is one big dig at YOU, right?

I mean, a kitten with a machine gun is your choice of image to go with Joc's passage beginning with a "Meh"? Seriously? "Meh" = kitten-with-machine-gun angry?

And when Joc (correctly) points out that graven images of Jesus are graven images, you think this is an example of a "strawman"?

And when Job refers specifically to what you, yourself, wrote on this very thread, for all to see, you refer to THAT as a "strawman" as well?

Really?

I mean, really?

You're just having a bit of a joke, right? You can't possibly think that this post of yours actually represents a clever attack on Joc, right? Please, please tell me I am completely missing the point, and you are actually engaging in very nice satire...

-snip-
And now he sees here someone has decide that they would like to show all of the non-believers here how they too can mock Jesus on the cross and play games with his clothes while he dies on the cross symbolically. And guess what, it’s not even one of the many anti-Christians in this forum that go out of their way to mock Jesus and mock the belief of salvation thorough Jesus’ blood on the cross on a daily basis, but no, it’s not one of them, it’s Smunkeeville of all people, showing them how they too can participate in mocking our Lord during his crucifixion. To him it was surprising and unexpected and he was shocked by it that you posted it because he thought you were a Christian. For me it was disappointing to see you of all people posting this stuff that surves no purpose other than for the non-believers enjoyment in mocking Jesus on the cross.

I can tell the difference between a cartoon drawing of what pop-culture has decided they think Jesus looks like, and the living God.

I brought this up for debate, I really want to know if all of the people around here think this is okay. I know that a lot of them (will not mention names) threw a fit over the Mohammad cartoons, I wanted to see if anyone around thought this was fine, or if they would think it was probably in poor taste.

I don't like representations of "white Jesus" or "white Jesus dying on the cross" because at the base level I find them unnecessary and on the grand scheme of things I find people who are so busy worshiping, exalting, and promoting their idols, that they don't get much more done than protesting other people playing computer games.......when what they really need to worry about is that they are mocking Jesus themselves, with their own life.

I don't particularly like the "game", I think it's pretty silly, and stupid. I also think the same of the people who would go out and hold signs and protest a mall for selling magnets.

If you want to do something to stop the mocking of Christ, you need to start with yourself (that's the general you) and branch out to your church and so on.

The number one answer I hear from atheists when I ask "why don't you believe?" is "Christians"

think about that.

Sure. ろば

愚かな子供は彼が理解しない言語を使用するべきでない。

I can tell the difference between a cartoon drawing of what pop-culture has decided they think Jesus looks like, and the living God.
Given that, as you point out, the image of "Jesus" that is used in this game probably has very little in common with what Jesus would actually have looked like, I think that's very sane of you.

Aryan Jesus is a relatively recent invention. Even if there was a real live dude named Jesus who did lots of awesome stuff back in the day, he sure as hell didn't look like Aryan Jesus. Mocking Aryan Jesus doesn't mock Christianity unless Christianity requires total and complete ignorance of the time period in which the Christ supposedly lived. And I don't think it does.

I found out about this tonight at church, apparently it offends.

here is a news-type story about it and a protest
http://www.tfp.org/what_we_do/index/blasphemy_dress_up_jesus.htm


here is the site where you can try it out

http://www.jesusdressup.com/


what do you guys think? offensive? funny? stupid?

I salute the protesters. Good on them. I, like most Christians, believe that Jesus died on the cross because of His love for us. To do what Urban Outfitters did is mocking Christ's death. I'm offended by it.

I salute the protesters. Good on them. I, like most Christians, believe that Jesus died on the cross because of His love for us. To do what Urban Outfitters did is mocking Christ's death. I'm offended by it.
I really, really love the fact that you made this post while also having a front-page thread about your sex-assault wet dream last night. That's just priceless.

I salute the protesters. Good on them. I, like most Christians, believe that Jesus died on the cross because of His love for us. To do what Urban Outfitters did is mocking Christ's death. I'm offended by it.

you are not offended by people who use Christ's death and forgiveness as fuel for their hate and hypocrisies?

...
And when Joc (correctly) points out that graven images of Jesus are graven images, you think this is an example of a "strawman"?

Instead of attacking the post and argument I presented, he created a different topic and he assigned that position to me... Yes, that's the definition of a strawman, it doesn't matter what argument positions he put in it, they weren't mine...

And when Job refers specifically to what you, yourself, wrote on this very thread, for all to see, you refer to THAT as a "strawman" as well?

Jocabia didn't quote anything I said in this thread. Neither did he represent my position or even topic, in this thread.

Sadly, you choose to not actually read what I did say, or else you'd see that I didn't say any of the stuff Jocabia tried to assign to me.

I can tell the difference between a cartoon drawing of what pop-culture has decided they think Jesus looks like, and the living God.

I brought this up for debate, I really want to know if all of the people around here think this is okay. I know that a lot of them (will not mention names) threw a fit over the Mohammad cartoons, I wanted to see if anyone around thought this was fine, or if they would think it was probably in poor taste.

I don't like representations of "white Jesus" or "white Jesus dying on the cross" because at the base level I find them unnecessary and on the grand scheme of things I find people who are so busy worshiping, exalting, and promoting their idols, that they don't get much more done than protesting other people playing computer games.......when what they really need to worry about is that they are mocking Jesus themselves, with their own life.

I don't particularly like the "game", I think it's pretty silly, and stupid. I also think the same of the people who would go out and hold signs and protest a mall for selling magnets.

If you want to do something to stop the mocking of Christ, you need to start with yourself (that's the general you) and branch out to your church and so on.

The number one answer I hear from atheists when I ask "why don't you believe?" is "Christians"

think about that.

I think the doll is not an attempt to "mock jesus" but rather a bad attempt at making Jesus more accessible and "user friendly" to children by providing them with a hands-on toy. As I said before I really don't consider it a threat. The anti-christians are not going to spend their money on it and the extreme pious christians are not going to buy it because they see it as offensive. The more liberal people are not going to buy it because they'll see it for what it is - tacky. Mildy amusing (bemusing?) but tacky.

Along the same lines, neither would I buy a joint smoking buddha (ive seen a few) not because I find it offensive in anyway, just because it's tacky and unattractive. My single buddha statue I bought just because he made me smile, he's the fat laughing one.

Here, I’ll help you understand his statement, it’s surprisingly simple actually, I’m surprised you missed it…

He remembers reading about some Roman soldiers who played dice for Jesus Clothes, and he remember reading about people mocking Jesus and laughing while they watched Jesus suffering to death on the cross before them…

Matthew 27:27-31
Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the governor's headquarters, and they gathered the whole battalion before him. And they stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on his head and put a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him, they mocked him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" And they spit on him and took the reed and struck him on the head. And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the robe and put his own clothes on him and led him away to crucify him.

Matthew 27:35
And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots.

Matthew 27:41-43
So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, 'I am the Son of God.'"


And now he sees here someone has decide that they would like to show all of the non-believers here how they too can mock Jesus on the cross and play games with his clothes while he dies on the cross symbolically. And guess what, it’s not even one of the many anti-Christians in this forum that go out of their way to mock Jesus and mock the belief of salvation thorough Jesus’ blood on the cross on a daily basis, but no, it’s not one of them, it’s Smunkeeville of all people, showing them how they too can participate in mocking our Lord during his crucifixion. To him it was surprising and unexpected and he was shocked by it that you posted it because he thought you were a Christian. For me it was disappointing to see you of all people posting this stuff that surves no purpose other than for the non-believers enjoyment in mocking Jesus on the cross.

I'm sure it's already been mentioned - but I'm replying to posts as I get to them...

Jesus wasn't white. He wouldn't have been a slightly effeminate looking paleskin with girly hair. Hell, 'Jesus' isn't even his name, now, is it...?

To get worked up over it is kind of like getting worked up over Coca Cola's version of Santa.

Meh. The fact that some Christians choose to wear a idol on thier neck that depits a generally graphic display of the death of Jesus is more offensive to me.

It doesn't strike me as surprising that people set up an graven image and then find that such an image is used in a way they don't like. Perhaps God saw that one coming and, thus, we have the reason for the requirement that we not do so.

How dare you, Smunkee? How dare you even suggest that mocking their graven idol isn't something you condemn? You're supposed to support molded gods just like the Bible says. Thus sayith PootWaddle, thus sayith the Lord.

Or perhaps, mocking a graven idol is just that and we could just realize that Jesus and the images that people worship are not the same thing.

Quoted for truth.

We have a huge section of the 'followers of Christ' variety wandering around with graphic representations of the torture and death, as an article of faith... despite the fact that many can clearly see that as a commandment-breaker.

To get precious about exactly how it is acceptable to portray that (especially when one considers how much the image has been 'edited' already), is somewhere just the other side of ridiculous.

http://www.muhammaddressup.com/

For the infidel in you...

or you could go to the home page of the guy who does this and start reading the 311 pages of hate mail he has received.

Here Jocabia shows us he's angry...

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/killrkat.gif



Here Jocabia builds us a strawman...

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/strawman.jpg



Here Jocabia attacks his strawman...

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/attacking_strawman.jpg



Here Jocabia finishes off his strawman...

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/burning_strawman.jpg


We should all applaud such a fine show...

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/applause.jpg


Oh, look, yet another post with no argument. Here's the funny thing about making logical fallacy claims. You have to actually demonstrate them. You didn't.

Now, on the actual subject... what part of my post did you disagree with? Are we not commanded by God not to make cast idols? Are we not commanded by God not to make molds of gods? Are you or are you not complaining that this mold of God is being mocked?

Arguments are you friend, Pooty. How about making some? Or are you just going to jump into threads to chastise Smunkee and myself?

Instead of attacking the post and argument I presented, he created a different topic and he assigned that position to me... Yes, that's the definition of a strawman, it doesn't matter what argument positions he put in it, they weren't mine...

So you didn't chastise Smunkee for not be protective enough of the graven idol? Hmmm... are you sure about that?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12332101&postcount=18

"And now he sees here someone has decide that they would like to show all of the non-believers here how they too can mock Jesus on the cross" And of course here you are talking about the IMAGE of Jesus on the cross. Nevermind that the image looks nothing like Jesus must have looked and that its a graven idol. To you, it's ACTUALLY "Jesus on the cross" by your very own words. You've equated Jesus and the graven idol. You ARE promoting graven idols and chastising Smunkee for not doing the same.

" it’s Smunkeeville of all people, showing them how they too can participate in mocking our Lord during his crucifixion." Once again, you claim that the graven idol is ACTUALLY "our Lord during his crucifixion". I simply pointed out that it's not our Lord and that it's actually just a graven idol. That's not your argument. It's mine. You've not addressed it.

Jocabia didn't quote anything I said in this thread. Neither did he represent my position or even topic, in this thread.

Sadly, you choose to not actually read what I did say, or else you'd see that I didn't say any of the stuff Jocabia tried to assign to me.

Hmmm... now you'll see some quotes. Go ahead. Tell me you didn't say that mocking an image is equivalent to actually mocking the Lord. Go ahead. Ignore that you did. God not only doesn't support graven idols but forbade them. To pretend that mocking them is an affront to God is pure ignorance of the commandments.

Quoted for truth.

We have a huge section of the 'followers of Christ' variety wandering around with graphic representations of the torture and death, as an article of faith... despite the fact that many can clearly see that as a commandment-breaker.

To get precious about exactly how it is acceptable to portray that (especially when one considers how much the image has been 'edited' already), is somewhere just the other side of ridiculous.

Yes, that's the point. It's wrong on so many levels. I can't help but laugh at people get so upset regarding a graven idol that cannot possibly actually resemble the Biblical Jesus.

Yes, that's the point. It's wrong on so many levels. I can't help but laugh at people get so upset regarding a graven idol that cannot possibly actually resemble the Biblical Jesus.

I get even more upset that some of my fellow "Christians" are so superficial that they can't understand when the real mocking of Christ goes on.

:(

Yes, that's the point. It's wrong on so many levels. I can't help but laugh at people get so upset regarding a graven idol that cannot possibly actually resemble the Biblical Jesus.

I'm coming down on the side of what Smunkee said earlier - it seems to me (correct me if I misinterpret) that the important thing is not what Jesus looked like - either in his earthly ministry, or in his vicarious substitution.

If there is a lesson to be learned from Greek scripture - it is about what he said and what he did... not whether he was wearing robes, flip-flops or a bunny costume at the time.

Quoted for truth.

We have a huge section of the 'followers of Christ' variety wandering around with graphic representations of the torture and death, as an article of faith... despite the fact that many can clearly see that as a commandment-breaker.

To get precious about exactly how it is acceptable to portray that (especially when one considers how much the image has been 'edited' already), is somewhere just the other side of ridiculous.

It’s been a time honored tradition by the Anti-Christians to show their sentiment by trying to ridicule the crucifixion graphically, in one method or another. For you to pretend that the obviously ‘intended’ insults should not be considered as insults because they are ineffective due to the color of the skin in the pictures (when made by the mocker) different than the actual Messiah's skin tone, is disingenuous at best, and absurd mockery on your part itself at worst.

Anti-Christian graffiti as far back as 225 A.D. has depicted graphic mockery of the crucifixion (as the picture I’m posting has done). A person raising one hand reverently to a crucified figure with the head of a donkey, it mocks both the person’s belief and the figure on the cross, the words: "Alexamenos worships his god" is clearly legible…

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/anti-Christian_Graffiti.jpg

My post showed how Smunkeeville’s links correlate with the actual mockery at the crucifixion scripturally (by changing Jesus clothes to mock him further), and how the other poster was surprised.

How would it be different if we designed a cut-out doll to let people put characters in black face in stereotypical costumes of the nineteenth century slaves. You would argue that the African Americans shouldn’t be offended because the characters are not really black, they are white people with black make-up on? Of course that would still be an insult to African Americans. Your defense that Jesus’ skin color was different than the caricature’s skin color is an equally weak defense.

I get even more upset that some of my fellow "Christians" are so superficial that they can't understand when the real mocking of Christ goes on.

:(

I think you worded it perfectly. I think it's the mocking that Christians perform by, let's say for example, posting simply to call someone an ass, while promoting a graven idol or just the rampant hatred and judgment performed in Jesus' name that is so much more grave.

But hey, you're a horrible person for not worrying about non-Christians playing dress-up with a graven idol. We must treat that graven idol as if it's sacred. Protect it, lest we forget that mocking the graven idol is mocking the Lord. Pfft.

I'm coming down on the side of what Smunkee said earlier - it seems to me (correct me if I misinterpret) that the important thing is not what Jesus looked like - either in his earthly ministry, or in his vicarious substitution.

If there is a lesson to be learned from Greek scripture - it is about what he said and what he did... not whether he was wearing robes, flip-flops or a bunny costume at the time.

Yes, of course, it's we, Christians, should be worrying about what we do and setting a better example of living the life we're led to through Jesus. I don't see what a metal cast of a god has to do with that, but perhaps I'm being too logical about this.

....

Big long winded post entirely pointless because Jocoabia misread something yet again... :rolleyes:


Did I use the word symbolically? Why yes, yes I did. :headbang:

I think you worded it perfectly. I think it's the mocking that Christians perform by, let's say for example, posting simply to call someone an ass, while promoting a graven idol or just the rampant hatred and judgment performed in Jesus' name that is so much more grave.
It literally pains me to see the "christians" of the board speak out with so much hate against God's creation. It hurts me even more that they are furthering the agenda of the enemy.

But hey, you're a horrible person for not worrying about non-Christians playing dress-up with a graven idol. We must treat that graven idol as if it's sacred. Protect it, lest we forget that mocking the graven idol is mocking the Lord. Pfft.
I am a horrible person and a bad Christian, I know that now. :(

Big long winded post entirely pointless because Jocoabia misread something yet again... :rolleyes:

Again, demonstrate how I misread. You're avoiding my arguments, because you know you look silly.

Want to be taken seriously, try debate instead of posts consisting entirely and totally of attacks. I'll give you another chance to make an argument.


Did I use the word symbolically? Why yes, yes I did. :headbang:

Symbolism is exactly what the Lord forbade in graven idols. Turn your eyes to the Lord, not some graven idol.

It’s been a time honored tradition by the Anti-Christians to show their sentiment by trying to ridicule the crucifixion graphically, in one method or another. For you to pretend that the obviously ‘intended’ insults should not be considered as insults because they are ineffective due to the color of the skin in the pictures (when made by the mocker) different than the actual Messiah's skin tone, is disingenuous at best, and absurd mockery on your part itself at worst.

Anti-Christian graffiti as far back as 225 A.D. has depicted graphic mockery of the crucifixion (as the picture I’m posting has done). A person raising one hand reverently to a crucified figure with the head of a donkey, it mocks both the person’s belief and the figure on the cross, the words: "Alexamenos worships his god" is clearly legible…

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/anti-Christian_Graffiti.jpg

My post showed how Smunkeeville’s links correlate with the actual mockery at the crucifixion scripturally (by changing Jesus clothes to mock him further), and how the other poster was surprised.

How would it be different if we designed a cut-out doll to let people put characters in black face in stereotypical costumes of the nineteenth century slaves. You would argue that the African Americans shouldn’t be offended because the characters are not really black, they are white people with black make-up on? Of course that would still be an insult to African Americans. Your defense that Jesus’ skin color was different than the caricature’s skin color is an equally weak defense.

On the subject of strawmen.... oy.

I wasn't saying "insults should not be considered as insults because they are ineffective due to the color of the skin in the pictures". I was saying that there is a disconnect here. The Hebrew scripture explicitly forbids this creation of images as objects of reverence - so to get precious about them as objects of reverence is illogical and heretical.

You must see that, right? God told you not to conjure these images - he doesn't CARE what you dress them in, it is the image that is the fault. (One might argue that adding a little levity is actually a good thing, because it ameliorates the 'idol' nature of the image).

Pissing your pants because someone puts bunny ears on a graven image just doesn't add up if you are supposed to take the whole scripture literally... especially if you argue the relevence of the Ten Commandments.

http://www.muhammaddressup.com/

For the infidel in you...

or you could go to the home page of the guy who does this and start reading the 311 pages of hate mail he has received.

Hehehe, that's funny too.

Although I think it's a bit too OMGMUZLIMZRTERRIST. It'd be even funnier if Mohammed got the same suspenders and miniskirt as Jesus did. But the towel is hilarious :D

I am a horrible person and a bad Christian, I know that now. :(

Yes, you and your following the example of Christ, and all... what kind of 'Christianity' is that? :o

It’s been a time honored tradition by the Anti-Christians to show their sentiment by trying to ridicule the crucifixion graphically, in one method or another.

And an equally time honored for Christians to mock it by carrying a graven idol of it around their neck.

For you to pretend that the obviously ‘intended’ insults should not be considered as insults because they are ineffective due to the color of the skin in the pictures (when made by the mocker) different than the actual Messiah's skin tone, is disingenuous at best, and absurd mockery on your part itself at worst.

Or maybe he's pretending like as Christians we should be above concerning ourselves with playthings of others and more concerned with the fact that Christians are carrying around a graven idol and even more absurd, a clearly errant graven idol.



Anti-Christian graffiti as far back as 225 A.D. has depicted graphic mockery of the crucifixion (as the picture I’m posting has done). A person raising one hand reverently to a crucified figure with the head of a donkey, it mocks both the person’s belief and the figure on the cross, the words: "Alexamenos worships his god" is clearly legible…

Hmmmm... I guess some of us aren't really feeling it. I tend not to give much weight to name-calling. I don't think I've cried a single tear over it since I was about seven.

I'm more concerned about the hatred and bile that makes people want to mock the graven idol you so revere.

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/anti-Christian_Graffiti.jpg

My post showed how Smunkeeville’s links correlate with the actual mockery at the crucifixion scripturally (by changing Jesus clothes to mock him further), and how the other poster was surprised.

Except, it's a graven idol. Simply by being a graven idol it mocks God. Something you failed to notice.

There mocking to me amounts to mocking that idol. If we didn't create symbols of Christianity, they wouldn't have symbols to mock.


How would it be different if we designed a cut-out doll to let people put characters in black face in stereotypical costumes of the nineteenth century slaves. You would argue that the African Americans shouldn’t be offended because the characters are not really black, they are white people with black make-up on? Of course that would still be an insult to African Americans. Your defense that Jesus’ skin color was different than the caricature’s skin color is an equally weak defense.

Well, if black people created the models first and then people started creating costumes to put on them, then I suppose I would simply ignore their unfounded complaints.

Anti-Christian graffiti as far back as 225 A.D. has depicted graphic mockery of the crucifixion (as the picture I’m posting has done). A person raising one hand reverently to a crucified figure with the head of a donkey, it mocks both the person’s belief and the figure on the cross, the words: "Alexamenos worships his god" is clearly legible…

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/anti-Christian_Graffiti.jpg


Got a source for that?

Edit: I don't know what that says, but it sure as hell isn't "Alexamenos worships his god". For starters, "EEON" is not "god".

Edit 2: Okay, "eeon" apparently isn't even a word in Latin. Even if you take the first e as a d, "deon" isn't a word either, as far as I can find.

...

Symbolism is exactly what the Lord forbade in graven idols. Turn your eyes to the Lord, not some graven idol.

You are entirely incapable of reading the actual post aren't you? I said the website Smunkeeville provided them enables them to mock the crucifixion themselves symbolically.

I haven't responded to your graven idol nonsense at all, outside of pointing out that it is a strawman tactic of yours to try and change the subject to something you can easily attack.

On the subject of strawmen.... oy.

I wasn't saying "insults should not be considered as insults because they are ineffective due to the color of the skin in the pictures". I was saying that there is a disconnect here. The Hebrew scripture explicitly forbids this creation of images as objects of reverence - so to get precious about them as objects of reverence is illogical and heretical.

You must see that, right? God told you not to conjure these images - he doesn't CARE what you dress them in, it is the image that is the fault. (One might argue that adding a little levity is actually a good thing, because it ameliorates the 'idol' nature of the image).

Pissing your pants because someone puts bunny ears on a graven image just doesn't add up if you are supposed to take the whole scripture literally... especially if you argue the relevence of the Ten Commandments.

Yes, exactly. "Dear, God, they're not taking the graven image you told me not to make with proper reverence, reverence you told me not to give graven images." It's the equivalent of arguing that. It simply doesn't make sense.

If Christianity relieves itself of symbols for God, then there will be no symbols to mock.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a192/piggy_g87/jesu.jpg

My Jesus is pretty :)

You are entirely incapable of reading the actual post aren't you? I said the website Smunkeeville provided them enables them to mock the crucifixion themselves symbolically.

I haven't responded to your graven idol nonsense at all, outside of pointing out that it is a strawman tactic of yours to try and change the subject to something you can easily attack.

It's MY argument. I'm not attributing the graven idol to you as an argument. It's a response to your argument. One wonders if you even understand the nature of a strawman when you misuse it so gravely.

Meanwhile, symbolism with regard to God is forbidden in the ten commandments. I'm sorry you missed that bit. You're defending the use of that symbolism and given it weight by claiming that in mocking the graven idol it is mocking God.

You are entirely incapable of reading the actual post aren't you? I said the website Smunkeeville provided them enables them to mock the crucifixion themselves symbolically.

I haven't responded to your graven idol nonsense at all, outside of pointing out that it is a strawman tactic of yours to try and change the subject to something you can easily attack.

No - that's actually the whole point.

The graven image is forbidden... by god no less.

He's not upset about it, or pissed about it. He just said don't do it.

Many christians create, or honour, graven images on a daily basis.

To get teary-eyed because someone else decides to play the same game is ridiculous - and pales into insignificance before the simple fact that those who already DO honour their own graven images, are defying their god.

To 'protect' the graven image, is to gainsay god. You have balls of brass, my friend.

No - that's actually the whole point.

The graven image is forbidden... by god no less.

He's not upset about it, or pissed about it. He just said don't do it.

Many christians create, or honour, graven images on a daily basis.

To get teary-eyed because someone else decides to play the same game is ridiculous - and pales into insignificance before the simple fact that those who already DO honour their own graven images, are defying their god.

To 'protect' the graven image, is to gainsay god. You have balls of brass, my friend.

Shhh... don't you know bringing up that it's a graven image is a strawman. You're not allowed to mention that unless Pooty does first, my friend. Otherwise, he'll mock your arguments and call them fallacies that he doesn't understand.

By the way, brass just happens to be the REAL color of Jesus' skin. Well, that is if you take the word of the Bible, over the word of those making the graven images.

Yes, exactly. "Dear, God, they're not taking the graven image you told me not to make with proper reverence, reverence you told me not to give graven images." It's the equivalent of arguing that. It simply doesn't make sense.

If Christianity relieves itself of symbols for God, then there will be no symbols to mock.

Very true. And, perhaps, that is why the Hebrew version of the faith made such a big fuss about not having any images.

Add to that, of course, how can any image do justice to even the basest concepts of the godhead? Logically, any graven image is mockery incarnate - with or without the Uncle Sam hat.

It's MY argument. I'm not attributing the graven idol to you as an argument. It's a response to your argument. One wonders if you even understand the nature of a strawman when you misuse it so gravely.

Meanwhile, symbolism with regard to God is forbidden in the ten commandments. I'm sorry you missed that bit. You're defending the use of that symbolism and given it weight by claiming that in mocking the graven idol it is mocking God.

I defended the use of graven idols? Really. Prove it liar.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a192/piggy_g87/jesu.jpg

My Jesus is pretty :)

you broke my thread! fix it......fix it:eek: ;)

Got a source for that?

Edit: I don't know what that says, but it sure as hell isn't "Alexamenos worships his god". For starters, "EEON" is not "god".

Edit 2: Okay, "eeon" apparently isn't even a word in Latin. Even if you take the first e as a d, "deon" isn't a word either, as far as I can find.

"Alexamenos sebete theon" (Alexamenos worships his god.)

http://www.loyno.edu/~ajterril/Alexamenos.htm

I defended the use of graven idols? Really. Prove it liar.

Do you or do you not claim that the problem with this issue is not that it's a graven idol, so much so that you refuse to even address it, but instead that it's not treating the image with enough reverence?

And well, let's see if I can find you defending symbols of God. Hmmm...

"while he dies on the cross symbolically. " You defend the symbol of Jesus dying on the cross.

"mocking our Lord during his crucifixion." Again, equating the image to the ACTUAL Lord.

"non-believers enjoyment in mocking Jesus on the cross." And, again.

You might find it surprising but when you defend the image of Jesus on the cross, you are actually, you know defending the image of Jesus on the cross as if it is God. Not only are you doing so, but chastising Smunkee for not defending the image as if it actually is God. And when challenged, you said you were defending the symbolism. What do you think a symbol is? A graven image, perhaps?

Next time you call me a liar and challenge me to quote me, it will make you look less silly if I can't actually quote you.

Very true. And, perhaps, that is why the Hebrew version of the faith made such a big fuss about not having any images.

Add to that, of course, how can any image do justice to even the basest concepts of the godhead? Logically, any graven image is mockery incarnate - with or without the Uncle Sam hat.

Of course. Amusingly, PootWaddle sounds very much like the Muslims that got so upset about the "mocking of their faith". Me, I simply can't get upset about such childish games. My vote on the poll was "it's just stupid".

EDIT: Keep in mind, that in both cases I've said it's childish to bait any group like that, and further it's wildly irresponsible if violence is likely. I compare it to yelling fire in a theatre.

I defended the use of graven idols? Really. Prove it liar.

I just put a miniskirt on the figure. It was really quite fetching.

The question is - did I put a skirt on an image, or did I actually enrobe Jesus with my actions?

Of course. Amusingly, PootWaddle sounds very much like the Muslims that got so upset about the "mocking of their faith". Me, I simply can't get upset about such childish games. My vote on the poll was "it's just stupid".

My mother-in-law bought my eldest girl a 'Noah's Ark' playset. For me... this is about the same, except you get to change the outfits on this doll.

It's a toy. No Jesuses were harmed in the production of this film.

Do you or do you not claim that the problem with this issue is not that it's a graven idol, so much so that you refuse to even address it, but instead that it's not treating the image with enough reverence?
...

I did NOT. Thus the rest of your post was pointless...yet again.

What I did was say how ridiculing the crucifixion act is wrong for a Christian to do and how this particular example correlates closely to the actuall mockery at the crucifixion by using the changing of clothes AND I said why Smunkeeville linking to it was wrong for a Christian to advance the practice because she intentionally shared it with those that love to mock it. I didn't say anything about the site itself other than to point out that it serves no purpose out side of mockery... Neither did I defend graven idols. Thus you either are a repeating liar in your accusation or you are continuously misreading posts, or you are building strawmen so that you can attack them instead of my position. I accused you of strawmen building, but you insist you are not, so I guess that leaves you with either being a liar or a bad reader, which is it?

My mother-in-law bought my eldest girl a 'Noah's Ark' playset. For me... this is about the same, except you get to change the outfits on this doll.

It's a toy. No Jesuses were harmed in the production of this film.

And once you claim that the doll IS a symbol of Jesus, then you are making it a cast of a god, (well, you wouldn't be, but if you beleived Jesus was God).

I did NOT. Thus the rest of your post was pointless...

So you do have a problem with the fact that this is a graven image of God?

What I did was say how ridiculing the crucifixion is wrong and how this particular example correlates closely to the actuall mockery at the crucifixion by using the changing of clothes AND I said why Smunkeeville linking to it was wrong for a Christian to advance the practice because she intentionally shared it with those that love to mock it. I didn't say anything about the site itself other than to point out that it serves no purpose out side of mockery... Neither did I defend graven idols. Thus you either are a repeating liar in your accusation or you are continuously misreading posts, or you are building strawmen so that you can attack them instead of my position. I accused you of strawmen building, but you insist you are not, so I guess that leaves you with either being a liar or a bad reader, which is it?

You are claiming that the image is a symbol of God, no? If not, why do you care? If it is, then it is a graven idol and in defending the idea that it be treated with proper reverence, i.e. not mocked or dressed up, you are defending that graven idol. It's not really complicated.

Grave gave you the question that demonstrates the problem here, if I put a skirt on an image of Jesus, am I making the image look silly or am I mocking Jesus? If you claim the second is true, then you equate the graven image with Jesus. Very simple.

I did NOT. Thus the rest of your post was pointless...yet again.

What I did was say how ridiculing the crucifixion act is wrong for a Christian to do and how this particular example correlates closely to the actuall mockery at the crucifixion by using the changing of clothes AND I said why Smunkeeville linking to it was wrong for a Christian to advance the practice because she intentionally shared it with those that love to mock it. I didn't say anything about the site itself other than to point out that it serves no purpose out side of mockery... Neither did I defend graven idols. Thus you either are a repeating liar in your accusation or you are continuously misreading posts, or you are building strawmen so that you can attack them instead of my position. I accused you of strawmen building, but you insist you are not, so I guess that leaves you with either being a liar or a bad reader, which is it?

if it's not an idol then the mocking does not matter.

It would not bother you if I took my daughter's teddy bear and dressed it up... because the teddy bear has no meaning to you.

a cartoon of what pop culture thinks Jesus might look like has little meaning to me.

There are very real and important things in my faith, a computer image is not one of them.

So you do have a problem with the fact that this is a graven image of God?

I haven't said anything about graven images at all. I said an 'intended insult' by someone should be taken as an insult, even if it's not a good insult. I didn't even say how a person should react to the insult... Your graven image issue is entirely your own. I'm talking about intentional insults and helping others to participate in it further...

if it's not an idol then the mocking does not matter.

It would not bother you if I took my daughter's teddy bear and dressed it up... because the teddy bear has no meaning to you.

a cartoon of what pop culture thinks Jesus might look like has little meaning to me.

There are very real and important things in my faith, a computer image is not one of them.

Did the creator of the image intend for a message to be relayed to the viewer, in this case? Yes, they intend for the viewer to think of Jesus. Did the creator of the image want the creation to be ridiculed and mocked? Yes they did. Visual language and written language, no difference provided the message is relayed.

Did the creator of the image intend for a message to be relayed to the viewer, in this case? Yes, they intend for the viewer to think of Jesus. Did the creator of the image want the creation to be ridiculed and mocked? Yes they did. Visual language and written language, no difference provided the message is relayed.

And you defend that claim when you say that in using an image they have actually mocked the Lord. You encourage the behavior when you lend it credence. The creator of the image created a graven idol and you are asking that since they did that people treat it with proper reverence.

Would you be okay with this image so long as people didn't mock it?

Did the creator of the image intend for a message to be relayed to the viewer, in this case? Yes, they intend for the viewer to think of Jesus. Did the creator of the image want the creation to be ridiculed and mocked? Yes they did. Visual language and written language, no difference provided the message is relayed.

Have you ever heard the phrase that actions speak louder than words?

My entire point is that too many "Christians" are worried about what they think other people are doing and go around condemning that, than they are worried about their own mockery of Christ.

Luke 6:42

Have you ever heard the phrase that actions speak louder than words?

My entire point is that too many "Christians" are worried about what they think other people are doing and go around condemning that, than they are worried about their own mockery of Christ.

Luke 6:42

Bow out gracefully, Poot. Smunkee has you.

Even if I mock Jesus in effigy, my sin is slight compared to the sin of creating or honouring the graven image.

If you consider a picture of Jesus to be sacred and inviolable, that picture is a graven image. What you are doing, is idolatry.

I'm playing with dolls... you are breaking a prime commandment. Which is the graver sin?

I haven't said anything about graven images at all.

The subject image of this thread is a graven image. It doesn't matter if you don't use the term. This image is cast of God. It's meant to be a cast of God. You've not once denounced it for disobeying that commandment instead focusing on the treatment of it. I'm simply calling you on it.


I said an 'intended insult' by someone should be taken as an insult, even if it's not a good insult. I didn't even say how a person should react to the insult... Your graven image issue is entirely your own. I'm talking about intentional insults and helping others to participate in it further...

Yes, it's my own. It's the point of MY argument and you keep dropping it because you don't want to address the fact that you are defending the idea that the image of Jesus represents God, you defend an image being a cast of gods.

It doesn't matter if you don't bring up women in a discussion about whether people should get abortions, the subject will still be about women getting abortions, because the woman part is a necessary part of the proces. It's true here. This must be a graven image or you couldn't make the claims you're making. You've not once responded to the FACT that this is a graven image, preferring instead to worry about how that graven image is treated. Can't you see how silly that is?

Have you ever heard the phrase that actions speak louder than words?

My entire point is that too many "Christians" are worried about what they think other people are doing and go around condemning that, than they are worried about their own mockery of Christ.

Luke 6:42

How does: How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye. (luke 6:42) defend your choice of behavior?

How is your 'entire point' get conveyed by providing non believers and scoffers a tool with which they can mock Christians and Christianity yet again? It is not conveyed when you provide them with the tools they make for themselves.

For example: A person participates in a wrongful act, like degrading women at strip joints and topless bars, or by robbing a bank, when they drive the to the act and/or enable the behavior, they don't have to willingly go in to place to be an accomplice to the bad behavior... IN this case you enabled the disrespectful behavior.

I salute the protesters. Good on them. I, like most Christians, believe that Jesus died on the cross because of His love for us. To do what Urban Outfitters did is mocking Christ's death. I'm offended by it.
You should read the artilce more closely. Among there signs were "Honk for Jesus, stay silent for Barrabas"(or something along those lines). This was clearly a refference to when Pilate asked the people who he should free, Jesus or Barrabas. What the protesters don't realise is that freeing Jesus would have meant no crucifixion, and no salvation(according to their beliefs).
It’s been a time honored tradition by the Anti-Christians to show their sentiment by trying to ridicule the crucifixion graphically, in one method or another. For you to pretend that the obviously ‘intended’ insults should not be considered as insults because they are ineffective due to the color of the skin in the pictures (when made by the mocker) different than the actual Messiah's skin tone, is disingenuous at best, and absurd mockery on your part itself at worst.

Anti-Christian graffiti as far back as 225 A.D. has depicted graphic mockery of the crucifixion (as the picture I’m posting has done). A person raising one hand reverently to a crucified figure with the head of a donkey, it mocks both the person’s belief and the figure on the cross, the words: "Alexamenos worships his god" is clearly legible…

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k23/PootWaddle/anti-Christian_Graffiti.jpg

My post showed how Smunkeeville’s links correlate with the actual mockery at the crucifixion scripturally (by changing Jesus clothes to mock him further), and how the other poster was surprised.

How would it be different if we designed a cut-out doll to let people put characters in black face in stereotypical costumes of the nineteenth century slaves. You would argue that the African Americans shouldn’t be offended because the characters are not really black, they are white people with black make-up on? Of course that would still be an insult to African Americans. Your defense that Jesus’ skin color was different than the caricature’s skin color is an equally weak defense.

I did NOT. Thus the rest of your post was pointless...yet again.

What I did was say how ridiculing the crucifixion act is wrong for a Christian to do and how this particular example correlates closely to the actuall mockery at the crucifixion by using the changing of clothes AND I said why Smunkeeville linking to it was wrong for a Christian to advance the practice because she intentionally shared it with those that love to mock it. I didn't say anything about the site itself other than to point out that it serves no purpose out side of mockery... Neither did I defend graven idols. Thus you either are a repeating liar in your accusation or you are continuously misreading posts, or you are building strawmen so that you can attack them instead of my position. I accused you of strawmen building, but you insist you are not, so I guess that leaves you with either being a liar or a bad reader, which is it?

So, when Smunkee links us, who "love to mock [the crucifixion]", to these mockeries it's bad, but when you do(posting a picture of ancient roman anti-christian graffitti) it's fine?

How does: How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye. (luke 6:42) defend your choice of behavior?

How is your 'entire point' get conveyed by providing non believers and scoffers a tool with which they can mock Christians and Christianity yet again? It is not conveyed when you provide them with the tools they make for themselves.

For example: A person participates in a wrongful act, like degrading women at strip joints and topless bars, or by robbing a bank, when they drive the to the act and/or enable the behavior, they don't have to willingly go in to place to be an accomplice to the bad behavior... IN this case you enabled the disrespectful behavior.

I would have figured that she was saying that the protesters have a log in their eyes, so to speak.

How does: How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye. (luke 6:42) defend your choice of behavior?

How is your 'entire point' get conveyed by providing non believers and scoffers a tool with which they can mock Christians and Christianity yet again? It is not conveyed when you provide them with the tools they make for themselves.

For example: A person participates in a wrongful act, like degrading women at strip joints and topless bars, or by robbing a bank, when they drive the to the act and/or enable the behavior, they don't have to willingly go in to place to be an accomplice to the bad behavior... IN this case you enabled the disrespectful behavior.

The mock us to get a rise out of people like you. If we don't care, they have no reason to do it. If everyone was like Smunkee, they wouldn't bother.

Crying about it just adds credence to the idea this is actually a symbol of God. In fact, you actually called it that. Kind of hurts the whole idea, doesn't it?

What if she linked to a site that sold crucifixes? Would that be okay with you?

Got a source for that?

Edit: I don't know what that says, but it sure as hell isn't "Alexamenos worships his god". For starters, "EEON" is not "god".

Edit 2: Okay, "eeon" apparently isn't even a word in Latin. Even if you take the first e as a d, "deon" isn't a word either, as far as I can find.

Care to respond to this?

How does: How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye. (luke 6:42) defend your choice of behavior?

How is your 'entire point' get conveyed by providing non believers and scoffers a tool with which they can mock Christians and Christianity yet again? It is not conveyed when you provide them with the tools they make for themselves.

My entire point is that I think it's a waste of time and energy to go about condemning people for mocking something that you are in direct disobedience by revering. My point is that Christians today are so busy condemning that they can't see that they are sinning.

That verse sums up my opinion quite nicely.




For example: A person participates in a wrongful act, like degrading women at strip joints and topless bars, or by robbing a bank, when they drive the to the act and/or enable the behavior, they don't have to willingly go in to place to be an accomplice to the bad behavior... IN this case you enabled the disrespectful behavior.
In this case I saved them a trip to Google. I don't hold the cartoon drawing of a man to such a high standard that it's wrong for me to link to it.

Maybe you should quit using the internet, it would be like letting a pimp live in your house while you oppose prostitution. I mean the internet gives access to things like Jesus in a bunny suit.

My entire point is that I think it's a waste of time and energy to go about condemning people for mocking something that you are in direct disobedience by revering. My point is that Christians today are so busy condemning that they can't see that they are sinning.

That verse sums up my opinion quite nicely.





In this case I saved them a trip to Google. I don't hold the cartoon drawing of a man to such a high standard that it's wrong for me to link to it.

Maybe you should quit using the internet, it would be like letting a pimp live in your house while you oppose prostitution. I mean the internet gives access to things like Jesus in a bunny suit.

Once again, he says "disrespectful behavior" regarding a graven image. His issue is they aren't showing proper respect to the image and thus not to God. This is precisely what the commandment forbids, giving reverence to an image.

How does: How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye. (luke 6:42) defend your choice of behavior?

How is your 'entire point' get conveyed by providing non believers and scoffers a tool with which they can mock Christians and Christianity yet again? It is not conveyed when you provide them with the tools they make for themselves.

For example: A person participates in a wrongful act, like degrading women at strip joints and topless bars, or by robbing a bank, when they drive the to the act and/or enable the behavior, they don't have to willingly go in to place to be an accomplice to the bad behavior... IN this case you enabled the disrespectful behavior.

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew 5:38:45 RSV)

I believe Jesus would have extended this to "A sleight for a sleight". So while you're on the subject of hipocracy perhaps you should consider the meaning of the sermon on the mount before launching all out assaults on good people.

If you're truly a Christian and believe in Christ's words, then shut up and drop it. It's quite clear nothing anybody can say to you is going to change your stance, and, if you're intelligent, you'll know that continuing this is just going to result in more and more mockery of YOU (not your faith).

The mock us to get a rise out of people like you. If we don't care, they have no reason to do it. If everyone was like Smunkee, they wouldn't bother.

I hate to disagree with you here, but in all honesty I think I would still get a kick out of this kind of cartoon even if no Christians cried about it. As a matter of fact, the primary enjoyment I get out of playing with it has nothing to do with whether or not Christians are mad.

I find it humorous because of the absurd juxtaposition of a famous torture victim with bunny costumes, etc. I find it interesting because we are taking this image, one that so many people have killed each other over, and realizing that it's just a paper doll.

The fact that it happens to be a Christian image isn't really that important to me; you could do it with Mohammed, if there were some universally-recognized image of him, and it would work just as well. Buddha doesn't really work simply because he's so damn jolly to begin with. Dress-up Ganesha would be deeply awesome.


Crying about it just adds credence to the idea this is actually a symbol of God. In fact, you actually called it that. Kind of hurts the whole idea, doesn't it?
Now THAT I agree with. I would play around with cartoons like the dress-up Jesus for reasons other than pissing off Christians, but it is also true that every time a Christian bursts into tears over their precious image of Aryan Jesus I suddenly feel even more compelled to buy a set of Dress-Up Jesus fridge magnets. :D

If you really believe that most people are playing with Dress-Up Jesus because they want to pick on Christians, then you apparently believe that most people have the maturity level of 5-year-olds. If that is what you think of people, then respond accordingly: annoying 5-year-olds hate to be ignored. So ignore them. Crying and whining about how they're great big meanie heads, instead, is a lovely way to encourage their behavior.

I hate to disagree with you here, but in all honesty I think I would still get a kick out of this kind of cartoon even if no Christians cried about it. As a matter of fact, the primary enjoyment I get out of playing with it has nothing to do with whether or not Christians are mad.

I find it humorous because of the absurd juxtaposition of a famous torture victim with bunny costumes, etc. I find it interesting because we are taking this image, one that so many people have killed each other over, and realizing that it's just a paper doll.

The fact that it happens to be a Christian image isn't really that important to me; you could do it with Mohammed, if there were some universally-recognized image of him, and it would work just as well. Buddha doesn't really work simply because he's so damn jolly to begin with. Dress-up Ganesha would be deeply awesome.

Interestingly enough, in doing so, you're trying to make it ONLY an image. It takes away the aspect of making it actually the act of mocking God. In fact, since you don't believe in God, you can't actually mock Him. That's for us to do by claiming that an idol of him is due "respect."


[QUOTE=Bottle;12333416]Now THAT I agree with. I would play around with cartoons like the dress-up Jesus for reasons other than pissing off Christians, but it is also true that every time a Christian bursts into tears over their precious image of Aryan Jesus I suddenly feel even more compelled to buy a set of Dress-Up Jesus fridge magnets. :D

If you really believe that most people are playing with Dress-Up Jesus because they want to pick on Christians, then you apparently believe that most people have the maturity level of 5-year-olds. If that is what you think of people, then respond accordingly: annoying 5-year-olds hate to be ignored. So ignore them. Crying and whining about how they're great big meanie heads, instead, is a lovely way to encourage their behavior.

I really do think that most people involved in this kind of nonsense have the maturity level of 5-year-olds. Probably not all. Some are actually trying to make a valid point.

Care to respond to this?

I did, but it was back on that broken page so it was easy for you to miss it...

"Alexamenos sebete theon" (Alexamenos worships his god.)

http://www.loyno.edu/~ajterril/Alexamenos.htm

...

In this case I saved them a trip to Google. I don't hold the cartoon drawing of a man to such a high standard that it's wrong for me to link to it.

Maybe you should quit using the internet, it would be like letting a pimp live in your house while you oppose prostitution. I mean the internet gives access to things like Jesus in a bunny suit.



:rolleyes:

Yeah, and the argument that I might as well buy my children their booze and drugs myself because they'll get it anyway, must be a another one of your stances?

Interestingly enough, in doing so, you're trying to make it ONLY an image. It takes away the aspect of making it actually the act of mocking God. In fact, since you don't believe in God, you can't actually mock Him. That's for us to do by claiming that an idol of him is due "respect."

Yeah, that's kind of what I was trying to say. It's a bit hard for me to express how I think about images of other people's gods. I don't believe in their god, so I'm not trying to insult their god by playing around with an image associated with it. However, the very fact that I don't believe in their god (and therefore do not place any particular importance on an image associated with it) is often perceived as insulting in and of itself. This can quickly become confusing for all involved.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, and the argument that I might as well buy my children their booze and drugs myself because they'll get it anyway, must be a another one of your stances?

no, not really.

Are you the type that would protest a liquor store being built in your town?

no, not really.

Are you the type that would protest a liquor store being built in your town?

I didn't even protest this website, why would I protest something else? I said I was disappointed in YOU, a Christian, posting it for non-believers to use when you know that they already like mocking Christians and this site serves no other purpose...

I didn't even protest this website, why would I protest something else? I said I was disappointed in YOU, a Christian, posting it for non-believers to use when you know that they already like mocking Christians and this site serves no other purpose...

I'm amused that you feel appointed to judge other Christians. You are just racking up your 'day of judgement' account today, aren't you...

I didn't even protest this website, why would I protest something else? I said I was disappointed in YOU, a Christian, posting it for non-believers to use when you know that they already like mocking Christians and this site serves no other purpose...

I don't find myself mocked around here, mostly I see them mocking people who are out there to be mocked. They mock hypocrisies, they mock inconsistency, and they mock lack of integrity.

Like I said, they don't often mock me.

I am very disappointed in you, though, I was going to keep that to myself.

I don't find myself mocked around here, mostly I see them mocking people who are out there to be mocked. They mock hypocrisies, they mock inconsistency, and they mock lack of integrity.

Like I said, they don't often mock me.
There are lots of people who come to NS General and find themselves getting mocked.

Some of them are Christian. Some aren't.

If somebody comes to NS General and finds themselves being mocked constantly, I can say with 100% certainty that it is NOT simply because they are Christian. Plenty of Christians spend plenty of time here without getting mocked.

Now, there are ways of expressing yourself that will get you mocked, but they'll get you mocked whether you are Christian or Jewish or atheist or purple with orange stripes. There are ways of behaving that will get you mocked no matter which gods you worship or deny or ignore.

If you find yourself being constantly mocked, don't pull this BS routine about how it's because everybody picks on the poor, poor Christians. There are plenty of Christians, like Smunkee, who virtually never get mocked (except by moron trolls who nobody really cares about anyhow). It's not your religion, it's YOU.

There are lots of people who come to NS General and find themselves getting mocked.

Some of them are Christian. Some aren't.

If somebody comes to NS General and finds themselves being mocked constantly, I can say with 100% certainty that it is NOT simply because they are Christian. Plenty of Christians spend plenty of time here without getting mocked.

Now, there are ways of expressing yourself that will get you mocked, but they'll get you mocked whether you are Christian or Jewish or atheist or purple with orange stripes. There are ways of behaving that will get you mocked no matter which gods you worship or deny or ignore.

If you find yourself being constantly mocked, don't pull this BS routine about how it's because everybody picks on the poor, poor Christians. There are plenty of Christians, like Smunkee, who virtually never get mocked (except by moron trolls who nobody really cares about). It's not your religion, it's YOU.
is this your version of QFT? because I think that's what I said. :p

is this your version of QFT? because I think that's what I said. :p
Heh. I just think some people need it spelled out for them in very clear terms, and with lots of repetition. :D

I don't find myself mocked around here, mostly I see them mocking people who are out there to be mocked. They mock hypocrisies, they mock inconsistency, and they mock lack of integrity.

Like I said, they don't often mock me.

I am very disappointed in you, though, I was going to keep that to myself.

You don't find yourself mocked around here, what does that have to do with anything? I wasn't talking about you or me being mocked, I was talking about you participating in enabling them to mock Christianity and the Christian belief of how salvation through Christ was accomplished.

You don't find yourself mocked around here, what does that have to do with anything? I wasn't talking about you or me being mocked, I was talking about you participating in enabling them to mock Christianity and the Christian belief of how salvation through Christ was accomplished.

I believe you said that they like to mock Christians.

I am not really interested in someone who feels they have to mock a belief, well, I am interested, but not offended.

I am not enabling them, I just don't really care. There is a difference.

I believe you said that they like to mock Christians.

I am not really interested in someone who feels they have to mock a belief, well, I am interested, but not offended.

I am not enabling them, I just don't really care. There is a difference.

You DID enable them, you brought them the website instead of just the article about the topic. With the website they are enabled, with the article they are informed and you could have discussed the topic if that was all you had in mind.

You don't find yourself mocked around here, what does that have to do with anything? I wasn't talking about you or me being mocked, I was talking about you participating in enabling them to mock Christianity and the Christian belief of how salvation through Christ was accomplished.

Hmmmm... I don't feel mocked, so it can't be ALL of Christianity. They must just mocking those that think that a graven idol actually represents God. What evidence do I have for this? The only Christian complaining is the one that things that what they do to a graven idol they do to God.

Since I don't believe in graven images nor do I support those who do, I guess I've got nothing to be upset about. Yay for me.

You DID enable them, you brought them the website instead of just the article about the topic. With the website they are enabled, with the article they are informed and you could have discussed the topic if that was all you had in mind.

Except they aren't mocking ALL Christians. They're mocking the Christians who believe this image actually represents God... those that support the use of graven idols. You're correct in your assumption that Smunkee is not one of those Christians. I'm sorry that you think this graven image represents God and that as such you are offended by these actions. I actually wish you weren't. Unfortunately, the solution isn't to chastise Smunkee, but instead to realize that these people don't believe in God so it can't actually represent the actual God to them OR they don't think this symbol represents the God they believe in, so eitherr way, it doesn't actually do anything unless you choose to make the symbol they're dressing up actually represent the God you worship. The solution is for you to stop lending credence to the idea that graven idols actually connect anyone to God in any real way and realize that according to the ten commandments it's a sin to suggest that a symbol deserves respect as a god.

Hmmmm... I don't feel mocked, so it can't be ALL of Christianity. They must just mocking those that think that a graven idol actually represents God. What evidence do I have for this? The only Christian complaining is the one that things that what they do to a graven idol they do to God.

Since I don't believe in graven images nor do I support those who do, I guess I've got nothing to be upset about. Yay for me.

You accuse me of believing in graven images even after I've clearly stated you are barking up the wrong tree. According to you, you aren't making strawmen, I'll take your word for it. Thus, the only conclussion that can be reached now is that you are a bald faced liar. You lie. Repeatedly.

You accuse me of believing in graven images even after I've clearly stated you are barking up the wrong tree. According to you, you aren't making strawmen, I'll take your word for it. Thus, the only conclussion that can be reached now is that you are a bald faced liar. You lie. Repeatedly.
An evil bald faced liar masterminding a global conspiracy against jackasses.

You accuse me of believing in graven images even after I've clearly stated you are barking up the wrong tree. According to you, you aren't making strawmen, I'll take your word for it. Thus, the only conclussion that can be reached now is that you are a bald faced liar. You lie. Repeatedly.

Here's a simple question. Would you be offended if she'd linked a site that sells silver depictions of the crucifixion? You avoided the answer.

I accused you of supporting graven images and suggesting that a symbol represents God. You've said it repeatedly. That's support of graven images. There is no getting around it. The fact that I say it differently than you doesn't make it a lie. It makes you wrong.

But, hey, prove you don't. Tell us that you would be equally upset if Smunkee linked a site that sells crosses. Simple question. Would you be? Yes or no.

An evil bald faced liar masterminding a global conspiracy against jackasses.

I am bald-faced (it's required for my job). But claiming that his claim that he's not supporting graven images is wrong isn't a lie. I believe that he's wrong and that he is supporting graven images. According to him if I don't agree that with what his actions speak to, I'm a liar. It's how he avoids making an actual argument.

Except they aren't mocking ALL Christians. They're mocking the Christians who believe this image actually represents God... those that support the use of graven idols. You're correct in your assumption that Smunkee is not one of those Christians.

You lie again and again, but you added something new this time... I do not assume anything about Smunkeeville's belief other than knowing that she believes in salvation through the blood of Jesus and that was accomplished on the cross. And here she made herself the vehicle with which non-believers could mock that concept of salvation symbolically.

Here's a simple question. Would you be offended if she'd linked a site that sells silver depictions of the crucifixion? You avoided the answer.

Because it's not a part of the conversation, it's a part of your strawman argument/diversion.

I accused you of supporting graven images and suggesting that a symbol represents God. You've said it repeatedly. That's support of graven images. There is no getting around it. The fact that I say it differently than you doesn't make it a lie. It makes you wrong.

But, hey, prove you don't. Tell us that you would be equally upset if Smunkee linked a site that sells crosses. Simple question. Would you be? Yes or no.

It makes you a liar. I don't have to prove anything to liars.

Somewhere, as we speak, Jesus is online and dressing himself up as a bunny. :)

You lie again and again, but you added something new this time... I do not assume anything about Smunkeeville's belief other than knowing that she believes in salvation through the blood of Jesus and that was accomplished on the cross. And here she made herself the vehicle with which non-believers could mock that concept of salvation symbolically.

Again, you claim this is a symbol. This time you try to choose your words carefully, but let's just go back to a few quotes where you blatantly say that this symbolized the Lord. Hmmm...

"it mocks both the person’s belief and the figure on the cross" The figure on the cross is obviously a figure of Jesus. So are you offended for the figure, or perhaps are you offended that it mocks Jesus? Don't worry, you don't have to answer. We already know.

"while he dies on the cross symbolically. " Again you refer to them mocking the symbol of Jesus.

"mocking our Lord during his crucifixion." Again, equating the image to the ACTUAL Lord.

"non-believers enjoyment in mocking Jesus on the cross." And, again.

You several times said that this image represents Jesus on the cross. Because you don't know this makes it a graven image isn't me lying, it's you being wrong.

I am bald-faced (it's required for my job). But claiming that his claim that he's not supporting graven images is wrong isn't a lie. I believe that he's wrong and that he is supporting graven images. According to him if I don't agree that with what his actions speak to, I'm a liar. It's how he avoids making an actual argument.

Oh, I'm entirely in agreement, that was a poor attempt at irony and a blemish on the page. In fact, I might delete it....

...nah, can't be arsed.

Because it's not a part of the conversation, it's a part of your strawman argument/diversion.



It makes you a liar. I don't have to prove anything to liars.

Ha. So the thread isn't about whether or not it's okay to mock an image because it has no connection to God? Really? Hmmm... why don't we ask the creator of the thread.

Meanwhile, keep avoiding the point, I love it. It makes you look silly. Answer a simple question since I'm such a liar. Don't just call me a liar. Prove it. Do you have an equal problem with people wearing the graven image of Christ around on their necks?

Again, you claim this is a symbol. This time you try to choose your words carefully, but let's just go back to a few quotes where you blatantly say that this symbolized the Lord. Hmmm...

"it mocks both the person’s belief and the figure on the cross" The figure on the cross is obviously a figure of Jesus. So are you offended for the figure, or perhaps are you offended that it mocks Jesus? Don't worry, you don't have to answer. We already know.

"while he dies on the cross symbolically. " Again you refer to them mocking the symbol of Jesus.

"mocking our Lord during his crucifixion." Again, equating the image to the ACTUAL Lord.

"non-believers enjoyment in mocking Jesus on the cross." And, again.

You several times said that this image represents Jesus on the cross. Because you don't know this makes it a graven image isn't me lying, it's you being wrong.

You are still a liar.

You are still a liar.

Ha. This is a wonderful tactic. It's making you look very wise. Again, prove I'm lying. Answer the simple question of whether or not you condemn the graven image of Jesus being worn by Christians?

EDIT: By the way, according to the rulings of the moderators, they have stated repeatedly that if you call me names you have to actually demonstrate why and how they apply or it's simply flaming. So, yes, you do actually have something to prove. I know that's difficult for you to face, this being a debate forum and all, but just answer the question.

Ah, this thread has made my day..

It's wonderful to see someone other than me being made to look a fool..

You are still a liar.

You asked me to prove that you said these things or admit I'm lying. I did prove it... twice. Both times your response was to completely ignore the substance and just call me names. You must be so proud.

Ha. This is a wonderful tactic. It's making you look very wise. Again, prove I'm lying. Answer the simple question of whether or not you condemn the graven image of Jesus being worn by Christians?

EDIT: By the way, according to the rulings of the moderators, they have stated repeatedly that if you call me names you have to actually demonstrate why and how they apply or it's simply flaming. So, yes, you do actually have something to prove. I know that's difficult for you to face, this being a debate forum and all, but just answer the question.

I have NOT advocated, nor admonished, the Christians who do or do not wear crucifixes. And I don't have to because tat is NOT the topic of this thread. What you are doing is spamming and/or thread high-jacking, you are showing yourself to be incapable of staying on the topic when you address my post. I addressed Smunkeevilles enabling non-believers to mock the Christian creed of salvation through Christ’s blood which was shed on the Cross at Calvary.


And as to proving you are a liar, here's my post that you attacked as advocating graven image worship... bolding for emphasis added by me now, seeing as how you keep trying to pretend I didn't say symbolically before but am now...

And now he sees here someone has decide that they would like to show all of the non-believers here how they too can mock Jesus on the cross and play games with his clothes while he dies on the cross symbolically.. And guess what, it’s not even one of the many anti-Christians in this forum that go out of their way to mock Jesus and mock the belief of salvation thorough Jesus’ blood on the cross on a daily basis, but no, it’s not one of them, it’s Smunkeeville of all people, showing them how they too can participate in mocking our Lord during his crucifixion. To him it was surprising and unexpected and he was shocked by it that you posted it because he thought you were a Christian. For me it was disappointing to see you of all people posting this stuff that surves no purpose other than for the non-believers enjoyment in mocking Jesus on the cross.

I have NOT advocated, nor admonished, the Christians who do or do not wear crucifixes. And I don't have to because tat is NOT the topic of this thread.

The topic of this thread as pointed out by the originator and everyone else is that this image in no way represents God or Christ. None. To claim it does makes it a graven idol. You claimed it does.


What you are doing is spamming and/or thread high-jacking, you are showing yourself to be incapable of staying on the topic when you address my post. I addressed Smunkeevilles enabling non-believers to mock the Christian creed of salvation through Christ’s blood which was shed on the Cross at Calvary.

Thread-hijacking? Really? Let's ask the originator of the thread. Smunkee, is the fact that this does not in any way represent God or Christ and to claim it does is idolatry on topic?

You claimed that this cross symbolizes God. You claimed they were mocking the Lord. I quoted you saying so. That's idolatry, my friend. Now, I know when you are busily point out the speck in Smunkee's eye, it upsets you when we notice the plank in yours, but that doesn't make it not there and not directly related to your claims.

If this isn't an idol, then there actions have no bearing on God or Jesus and thus we have nothing to take issue with.



And as to proving you are a liar, here's my post that you attacked as advocating graven image worship... bolding for emphasis added by me now, seeing as how you keep trying to pretend I didn't say symbolically before but am now...

Yes, unfortunately for you, the bolded part isn't the only thing you said. Here's your idolatry.

And now he sees here someone has decide that they would like to show all of the non-believers here how they too can mock Jesus on the cross and play games with his clothes while he dies on the cross symbolically[./b]. And guess what, it’s not even one of the many anti-Christians in this forum that go out of their way to mock Jesus and mock the belief of salvation thorough Jesus’ blood on the cross on a daily basis, but no, it’s not one of them, it’s Smunkeeville of all people, showing them how they too can participate in mocking our Lord during his crucifixion. To him it was surprising and unexpected and he was shocked by it that you posted it because he thought you were a Christian. For me it was disappointing to see you of all people posting this stuff that [b]surves no purpose other than for the non-believers enjoyment in mocking Jesus on the cross.

You claimed they were mocking Jesus. When I pointed it out, you claimed they were mocking the symbol of Jesus. Both claims are idolatry.

It's simple. Does or does not this image actually represent the Lord?

And do you support the wearing of the crucifix about your neck?

To prove I'm lying all you have to say is that you regard the wearing of a crucifix as a sin. (Well, actually that would prove I was wrong, but why mince words.)

I should point out that Dress-up Jesus wrapping paper is also available for the Christmas season (USA only). It can be purchased from the most offensive t-shirt site on the web. I would post a link, but I'm fairly sure it goes against some rule.

You may now go back to debating whether or not God cares if you look at a statue when you think of your perception of Her. Or how many angels dance on the head of a pin, or whatever floats your boat.

Got a source for that?

Edit: I don't know what that says, but it sure as hell isn't "Alexamenos worships his god". For starters, "EEON" is not "god".

Edit 2: Okay, "eeon" apparently isn't even a word in Latin. Even if you take the first e as a d, "deon" isn't a word either, as far as I can find.

Mebbe that's a theta?

...

I can’t believe that you're going to continue to sit there and even try to make the proposition that the people playing with that website aren't pretending that they are drawing pictures of Christ. Perhaps you think they are thinking of some random crucifixion having nothing to do with Christ? Perhaps it’s the semblance of someone else?

But I know that I never advocated or accused them of worshiping the image they've graven with their own hands though, so you are still a liar.

Perhaps it’s the semblance of someone else?

Is this sarcasm? Cuz, if it is, that would say you believe it's the semblance of Jesus...Which, if I follow, answers his question.

Is this sarcasm? Cuz, if it is, that would say you believe it's the semblance of Jesus...Which, if I follow, answers his question.

Nope, he says I say the image IS Christ. I say it represents Christ to the person making the object. He says I have advocated a belief in graven image idolotry. I have not, thus he is a liar.

I can’t believe that you're going to continue to sit there and even try to make the proposition that the people playing with that website aren't pretending that they are drawing pictures of Christ.

I could care less what they're pretending. They aren't actually doing it. Graven images are not Christ. It's that simple. They don't symbolize Christ. Suggesting that an image CAN represent Christ and therefore deserves respect is idolatry.

Perhaps you think they are thinking of some random crucifixion having nothing to do with Christ? Perhaps it’s the semblance of someone else?

It doesn't matter who they think it is. It matters who I think it is. And it's not Christ.

But I know that I never advocated or accused them of worshiping the image they've graven with their own hands though, so you are still a liar.

You suggested that they should be showing the image respect because it symbolizes the Lord. That's idolatry my friend.

And now you're claiming that I'm wrong on the meaning of idolatry and thus I'm a liar. Amusingly silly.

Nope, he says I say the image IS Christ. I say it represents Christ to the person making the object. He says I have advocated a belief in graven image idolotry. I have not, thus he is a liar.
You're the one lying, with this one. I've been reading this whole time, and you're just pulling this one out your bum. Joc isn't saying that you think the image IS Jesus, he's saying that you are making it into a graven image (of Jesus). He's repeated this so many times that I'm amazed you can even pretend to not understand.

Nope, he says I say the image IS Christ. I say it represents Christ to the person making the object. He says I have advocated a belief in graven image idolotry. I have not, thus he is a liar.

I say it doesn't represent Christ period. You said blatantly that in mocking the image they mock the Lord. That means it doesn't just represent the Lord to them, but to you. Here's a quote.

"non-believers enjoyment in mocking Jesus on the cross." You didn't say they are mocking an image or they are mocking an image that looks like Jesus on the cross, but that they are mocking Jesus. Pretty clear to me. But, hey, maybe I'm lying and you didn't say "non-believers enjoyment in mocking Jesus on the cross."

Is this sarcasm? Cuz, if it is, that would say you believe it's the semblance of Jesus...Which, if I follow, answers his question.

Yes, exactly. He has said several times that to him it represents Jesus. I've quoted him saying so and his response is just to call me a liar. Classic.

I could care less what they're pretending. They aren't actually doing it. Graven images are not Christ. It's that simple. They don't symbolize Christ. Suggesting that an image CAN represent Christ and therefore deserves respect is idolatry.

No, you still lie. IF you believed graven images were the problem here then you would be mad at Smunkeeville for enabling people to MAKE graven images, not me for telling her she shouldn't enable them doing it. See your flaw now? I did NOT tell people to make them, I did NOT make them myself, I only told Smunkeeville that she should not , as a Christian, have been the vehicle for non-believers to do it. And additionally, the images they make they do it in mockery of Christian belief of salvation....

It doesn't matter who they think it is. It matters who I think it is. And it's not Christ.

You are not the one creating the mockery images. The artist’s says what their painting are of, not you the observer. You can only say what they mean to you, not what it means to them.


You suggested that they should be showing the image respect because it symbolizes the Lord. That's idolatry my friend.

I never once said they should show the image respect, you lie again.

And now you're claiming that I'm wrong on the meaning of idolatry and thus I'm a liar. Amusingly silly.

Only because you are wrong and a liar.

No, you still lie. IF you believed graven images were the problem, you would be mad at smunkeeville for enabling people to MAKE graven images, not me for telling her she shouldn't enable them doing it. See your flaw now?

Only one problem. They don't believe Christ is God and, thus, CANNOT create be creating a cast to represent God. They believe they are creating a cast to represent a man. See the flaw now?

However, if you can demonstrate that I believe or have even suggested that one who doesn't believe in God can make an image of Him, please feel free. It's going to be difficult though, since I actually talked to Bottle about how I believe she cannot possible make it represent God since she doesn't believe God exists.

I did NOT tell people to make them, I did NOT make them myself, I only told smunkeeville that she should not have enabled non-believers to do it. And additionally, they do it in mockery of Christian belief of salvation....

YOU claimed that images represent Christ and the mocking an image mocks Christ. Are you really trying to claim that treating and idol as a god is okay as long as you didn't make it or order it to be made?


You are the one creating mockery images. The artists says what their painting is of, not the observer.

Ha. Really? Then the artist cannot be committing idolatry because they believe they are creating a cast of someone and they don't believe it's God. If you asked the creator, I'm certain you'll find they don't believe this is the actual image of God. However, you're welcome to prove me wrong.

I never once said they should show the image respect, you lie again.

Really? Hmmmm... love that quote function. You said that in they are disrespecting God through their treatment of the image. You're playing words games and quite frankly, you're getting drilled.

"IN this case you enabled the disrespectful behavior. "

Keep in mind the behavior you're discussing that Smunkee is enabling is the treatment of the image. So you are either equating the behavior to treatment of God, which is equating an image with God, Idolatry, and thus considering the treatment of the image to be disrespectful to God, or, perhaps, you think they are just disrespecting the image itself, which I doubt. Either way the behavior you say Smunkee is enabling is treatment of an image, that is the disrespectful behavior to which you refer. Whoops.




Only because you are wrong and a liar.

You do realize that you're embarrassing yourself in a thread where you claimed you were trying to council a Christian. Seems a bit counter-productive. But that's just me.

Meanwhile, you said I'm a liar BECAUSE I'm wrong. That makes you look a bit silly.

EDIT: Also, you notice that people are repeatedly pointing out that you've actually said those things. Are we all liars or is it possible that you're either being dishonest or communicating poorly?

Again, answer plainly since you claim I am misrepresenting you. That will put this to rest and represent you honestly as a Christian. Before God and all others, do you claim that you consider it sinful to wear cast images of Christ around your neck?

You're the one lying, with this one. I've been reading this whole time, and you're just pulling this one out your bum. Joc isn't saying that you think the image IS Jesus, he's saying that you are making it into a graven image (of Jesus). He's repeated this so many times that I'm amazed you can even pretend to not understand.

How could I make them into graven images? I didn't make them, I didn't advocate them making them and I certainly did not advocate anybody worshiping them anywhere, I'm amazed you can even pretend to not understand...

How could I make them into graven images? I didn't make them, I didn't advocate them making them and I certainly did not advocate anybody worshiping them anywhere, I'm amazed you can even pretend to not understand...

You claim that the graven image represents the Lord and that mocking it is mocking the Lord. You've claimed it repeatedly. That's idolatry.

Again, are you honestly trying to claim that it's not idolatry to claim a graven image represents the Lord so long as you didn't make it or commission it? Seriously?

Meanwhile, I'll just keep asking. Every time you refuse to answer you prove that you're unwilling to admit what you believe about the wearing of crosses. Is it a sin to wear the graven image of Christ around your neck?

How could I make them into graven images? I didn't make them, I didn't advocate them making them and I certainly did not advocate anybody worshiping them anywhere, I'm amazed you can even pretend to not understand...

Again, so you can claim that you and I disagree on the meaning of idolatry. However, you can't say I'm lying when I say that you said the things I've quoted. It's absurd.

Is it acceptable to wear a graven image of the Lord about your neck?

...
YOU claimed that images represent Christ and the mocking an image mocks Christ. Are you really trying to claim that treating and idol as a god is okay as long as you didn't make it or order it to be made?

How did I say that? I'M the one saying Smunkeeville shouldn't have been the one to bring it to them. You are the one saying it's okay to make them AND you accuse ME of graven image making... :rolleyes:


...Ha. Really? Then the artist cannot be committing idolatry because they believe they are creating a cast of someone and they don't believe it's God.

How many times have I said they are mocking Christians and Christian beliefs? Enough times that you should have seen it by now, so I think it's safe to call you a liar again...

...
"IN this case you enabled the disrespectful behavior. "

Intentionally insulting other people’s religions and trying to mock their beliefs IS disrespectful behavior, even if you do it through drawings instead of the written word or verbally. You may think otherwise perhaps. Maybe you think it’s okay to belittle other people faith and doctrine.

Again, answer plainly since you claim I am misrepresenting you. That will put this to rest and represent you honestly as a Christian. Before God and all others, do you claim that you consider it sinful to wear cast images of Christ around your neck?

Answer your own questions. Perhaps you think we shouldn't eat pork, perhaps you think we should worship on Saturdays, perhaps you think we should have no images of anything in our houses or places of worship ever, perhaps you think we should circumcise our boys on the eighth day after their birth... Perhaps you think a lot of things about applying old testament rules to Christianity, but I don't think they apply much to this thread topic, regardless how much you want to build that strawman...

Again, so you can claim that you and I disagree on the meaning of idolatry. However, you can't say I'm lying when I say that you said the things I've quoted. It's absurd.

Is it acceptable to wear a graven image of the Lord about your neck?

Is it acceptable for you to repeatedly lie?

How did I say that? I'M the one saying Smunkeeville shouldn't have been the one to bring it to them. You are the one saying it's okay to make them AND you accuse ME of graven image making... :rolleyes:

I'm saying the people making them don't actually believe they are gods. You do.

Again, I'm asking and you avoided answering. Are you claiming that it's okay that you are saying this image represents the Lord so long as you didn't make it or commission it to be made? If not, how is the fact you didn't make it pertinent?


How many times have I said they are mocking Christians and Christian beliefs? Enough times that you should have seen it by now, so I think it's safe to call you a liar again...

You said they are mocking the Lord when they mock the image. I quoted you saying it. It doesn't matter that you said OTHER things. You explicitly said that you believed mocking the image is mocking the Lord.

Meanwhile, I didn't say you didn't say that. It's not all you said. Bringing up that you said something else doesn't negate the part of your speech I'm referring to. But, hey, keep ringing that bell, it's really building up people's respect for you.




Intentionally insulting other people’s religions and trying to mock their beliefs IS disrespectful behavior, even if you do it through drawings instead of the written word or verbally. You may think otherwise perhaps. Maybe you think it’s okay to belittle other people faith and doctrine.

So again, it's the mocking you have trouble with. Amusing. You believe the images represent God, but it's the mocking them that's at issue.


Answer your own questions. Perhaps you think we shouldn't eat pork, perhaps you think we should worship on Saturdays, perhaps you think we should have no images of anything in our houses or places of worship ever, perhaps you think we should circumcise our boys on the eighth day after their birth... Perhaps you think a lot of things about applying old testament rules to Christianity, but I don't think they apply much to this thread topic, regardless how much you want to build that strawman...

This topic is about images of Jesus and whether dressing them up is actually mocking the Lord. If you don't see how discussing whether an image of Jesus actually represents the Lord is pertinent then I think you'd be better served to go out and play.

Again, do you thinnk that it's okay to wear a graven image of the Lord around your neck?

Is it acceptable for you to repeatedly lie?

Seriously.. It's becoming embarrassing. If you can't debate properly, don't bother. You've been owned. Repeatedly. Quit while you're.. er.. just quit.

Is it acceptable for you to repeatedly lie?

Not taking the bait. Prove I'm lying. Prove you didn't say what I quoted. Prove you didn't say that they are mocking the Lord. Go ahead. I'll wait. Remember that you have to show that the quote of you ACTUALLY saying it wasn't you or said something else in context. This should be fun.

Is it acceptable to wear the graven image of the Lord around your neck?

Eh I don't find it offensive. I'm surprised some Christians don't hate the fact that Jesus is wearing nothing but a loin cloth.

Probably because if he was wearing nothing we would be reminded he was a Jew ?

Probably because if he was wearing nothing we would be reminded he was a Jew ?

And then we'd get another circumsion thread...

And then we'd get another circumsion thread...

I was waiting for that. I'm glad it was you. I was biting my tongue. Though my reply would have been "and, thus, every thread comes down to be about religion, abortion, homosexuality, circumcision or some combination thereof."

I sold my soul (and my '78 Chevy van) to Dress Up Jesus in exchange for everlasting gobstoppers. Now I shall spend eternity in Heaven at Dress Up Jesus' side and even get to keep my sins as a souvenir.

I'm saying the people making them don't actually believe they are gods. You do.

I do not. You are still lying.

Again, I'm asking and you avoided answering. Are you claiming that it's okay that you are saying this image represents the Lord so long as you didn't make it or commission it to be made? If not, how is the fact you didn't make it pertinent?

It doesn't matter if I say it's okay, or not, if the artist intends for it to represent the Lord, then it does to them, they do not need my permission, nor yours.

I was waiting for that. I'm glad it was you. I was biting my tongue. Though my reply would have been "and, thus, every thread comes down to be about religion, abortion, homosexuality, circumcision or some combination thereof."

Ooh, fancy. Course, there's the underlying layer of spam, surely?

I do not. You are still lying.

They do not ACTUALLY believe the subject of the image is a god. You do. Are you claiming you don't?


It doesn't matter if I say it's okay, or not, if the artist intends for it to represent the Lord, then it does to them, they do not need my permission, nor yours.

Again, you try to avoid the point. The artist does not believe the subject of the image is truly a god. It cannot be idolatry for this reason.

And I don't believe it represents God either. So it's not a problem for me. You believe it does represent God. You've called mocking it actually mocking the Lord. That's incontrovertible evidence that you equate them. That's YOU. Not the maker of the image. Not me. YOU. You made your bed. Lie in it.

Is it a sin to wear the graven idol of Jesus Christ around your neck?

EDIT: Out of curiousity, do you have a two-year-old? And no, it's not related to the topic. I definitely find comments about your family to be off-limits. I'm only curious.

They do not ACTUALLY believe the subject of the image is a god. You do. Are you claiming you don't?

I claim that when they draw their pictures from Smunkeevilles site they think their ink or pixels represent Jesus, not somebody else.

You've called mocking it actually mocking the Lord.

You lie. I said they intentionally mock Christian beliefs and the Lords Crucifixion.

EDIT: Out of curiousity, do you have a two-year-old? And no, it's not related to the topic. I definitely find comments about your family to be off-limits. I'm only curious.

It's well known that I have children, why you want to know about them is beyond me. But none of them are two years old.

And now he sees here someone has decide that they would like to show all of the non-believers here how they too can mock Jesus on the cross and play games with his clothes while he dies on the cross symbolically. And guess what, it’s not even one of the many anti-Christians in this forum that go out of their way to mock Jesus and mock the belief of salvation thorough Jesus’ blood on the cross on a daily basis, but no, it’s not one of them, it’s Smunkeeville of all people, showing them how they too can participate in mocking our Lord during his crucifixion. To him it was surprising and unexpected and he was shocked by it that you posted it because he thought you were a Christian. For me it was disappointing to see you of all people posting this stuff that surves no purpose other than for the non-believers enjoyment in mocking Jesus on the cross.

Oh, lighten up. It was cute, in a weird sort of way.

Then again so is Smunkee.:D

You DID enable them, you brought them the website instead of just the article about the topic. With the website they are enabled, with the article they are informed and you could have discussed the topic if that was all you had in mind.

Actually, I have to say I encountered that site (or one very similar) a year or so ago. The news article was new, and that is what Smunkee presented. SHe also took time to link to the 'evidence' of the article.

I find it odd that you see providing evidence in a debate as a negative thing.

You lie again and again, but you added something new this time... I do not assume anything about Smunkeeville's belief other than knowing that she believes in salvation through the blood of Jesus and that was accomplished on the cross. And here she made herself the vehicle with which non-believers could mock that concept of salvation symbolically.

You are getting a little tiring, my friend... Smunkee provided links to the site that was in the article. You didn't have to go there, and you didn't have to put a miniskirt on Jesus. She didn't tell you to - she just showed you where it was, if you wanted to.

But, far more importantly - mocking salvation, symbolically or otherwise, is not the same as putting dresses on dress-up Jesus doll. Because the common Christian conception is that Jesus was a real person - not a doll.

It's filthy, appalling, offensive, and retarded.

and I love it.

It makes you a liar. I don't have to prove anything....

You say "don't have to"... I think "can't".

I wonder of the people who find this offensive were ok with the Mohammad cartoons?

I have NOT advocated, nor admonished, the Christians who do or do not wear crucifixes. And I don't have to because tat is NOT the topic of this thread. What you are doing is spamming and/or thread high-jacking, you are showing yourself to be incapable of staying on the topic when you address my post. I addressed Smunkeevilles enabling non-believers to mock the Christian creed of salvation through Christ’s blood which was shed on the Cross at Calvary.


I had to go back and check.

The 'topic of the thread', based on Smunkess's first post - is the fact that she found at about this site and the protest it has spawned. She asked what we think - I assume she is talking about the site and the protest.

Instead, you attack her. You claim she is enabling the denigration of Christ - and yet, the point keeps being made - a picture of a skinny bearded guy is NOT Christ... and, indeed, to claim it was would be heretical.

You see this dichotomy as a strawman. I think you are just choosing not to see why the issue is being raised.

Nope, he says I say the image IS Christ. I say it represents Christ to the person making the object. He says I have advocated a belief in graven image idolotry. I have not, thus he is a liar.

If the creator of the piece insists that the effigy represents Jesus, that is one thing.

For you to say that there is insult to Jesus, based on that 'symbolism' is you accepting that symbol as an image of Jesus. To further claim that such an image must not, therefore, be defaced with miniskirts and bunnyears, is to treat the image as an idol.

Is it acceptable for you to repeatedly lie?

I can understand why you wouldn't want to answer the question. But, it stands.

While many honked, others were indifferent, and some were antagonistic. When driving by, one lady yelled, “Get a life.” A protestor answered, “We’re after eternal life, that’s why we’re here.”

One word - 'retarded'.

I wonder of the people who find this offensive were ok with the Mohammad cartoons?

I wonder if the people pissed off at the Mohammad cartoons are okay with this....

I wonder of the people who find this offensive were ok with the Mohammad cartoons?

Probably.


I wonder if the people pissed off at the Mohammad cartoons are okay with this....

Possibly, but probably not (assuming they were truly angry out of adherence to Islam and not because a bunch of imans tried to whip them into a frenzy). IIRC, Muslim doctrine does not hold that Jesus was crucified, but it does hold that He is to be seen as a prophet and one is not supposed to make images of Jesus either.

I had to go back and check.

The 'topic of the thread', based on Smunkess's first post - is the fact that she found at about this site and the protest it has spawned. She asked what we think - I assume she is talking about the site and the protest.

Instead, you attack her. You claim she is enabling the denigration of Christ - and yet, the point keeps being made - a picture of a skinny bearded guy is NOT Christ... and, indeed, to claim it was would be heretical.

You see this dichotomy as a strawman. I think you are just choosing not to see why the issue is being raised.

I was just wondering if people thought that it was offensive. That's all, Poot could have said "yes, it offends me" and left it, but he went on to be....well...himself. Sadly, he missed the whole bigger picture of why exactly this pisses me off, and it's not the bunny ears, it's the protesters.

Somewhere, as we speak, Jesus is online and dressing himself up as a bunny. :)
Thanks to you and Grave_n_idle I'm getting an image of Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount while dressed in a giant pink bunny suit... and it scares me. :D

I was just wondering if people thought that it was offensive. That's all, Poot could have said "yes, it offends me" and left it, but he went on to be....well...himself. Sadly, he missed the whole bigger picture of why exactly this pisses me off, and it's not the bunny ears, it's the protesters.
What else is new though? There are so many people to whom religion is a club where you get to feel special because YOU'RE part of the in group that ANYTHING that challenges that specialness must be attacked with great furry. It turns faith into something that can be lessened or cheapened by someone elses actions instead of your own. I've never understood it because faith is internal, I believe because I believe and nothing that Bottle or The Nazz or Grave_n_idle can come up with can change that; though they can make me think, which is always a good thing.

Perhaps Poot just never has actually stuggled or examined his faith?

Too busy screaming and calling people donkeys I guess.

I can understand why you wouldn't want to answer the question. But, it stands.

Yet again you show up to simply kick the horse after its expired. I don't think there is any damage we could do to his argument that wasn't done by repeated posts that ignored substance only to repeat "Wah, you caught me so I'm going to call you a liar".

I think we both know why he won't answer that he thinks wearing a graven idol of Jesus is sinful.

What else is new though? There are so many people to whom religion is a club where you get to feel special because YOU'RE part of the in group that ANYTHING that challenges that specialness must be attacked with great furry. It turns faith into something that can be lessened or cheapened by someone elses actions instead of your own. I've never understood it because faith is internal, I believe because I believe and nothing that Bottle or The Nazz or Grave_n_idle can come up with can change that; though they can make me think, which is always a good thing.

Perhaps Poot just never has actually stuggled or examined his faith?

Too busy screaming and calling people donkeys I guess.

Hey, Grave_n_Idle is great at making me think......I like that, it's good for me. It doesn't offend me at all, in fact I think of him as a friend, a friend who cares enough to question me. ;)

i hate to be on the opposite side of so many people that i normally agree with but the mocking of the crucifiction is offensive.

you dont take it personally, fine. its still offensive. and moreover i cant see that the creators of this "toy" had any other intentions but to BE offensive and encourage other people to enjoy the offense.

i doesnt matter that it doesnt look like jesus. that is part of the point isnt it? to ridicule a religious icon? it has no other point that i can see but to be sacrilegious. its not a toy, its not innocent fun. its mocking christianity and roman catholicism (or so it seems by the posts on this thread)

i dont have a problem with anyone being offended by something designed to offend them. maybe they should be above it. *shrug* maybe retailers should think about it a bit before deciding to sell something like this.

Too busy screaming and calling people donkeys I guess.

I wonder if other people got this reference. It made me spit rum and coke on someone in the Admiral's club. If I get beat up, it's your fault.

i hate to be on the opposite side of so many people that i normally agree with but the mocking of the crucifiction is offensive.

you dont take it personally, fine. its still offensive. and moreover i cant see that the creators of this "toy" had any other intentions but to BE offensive and encourage other people to enjoy the offense.

i doesnt matter that it doesnt look like jesus. that is part of the point isnt it? to ridicule a religious icon? it has no other point that i can see but to be sacrilegious. its not a toy, its not innocent fun. its mocking christianity and roman catholicism (or so it seems by the posts on this thread)

i dont have a problem with anyone being offended by something designed to offend them. maybe they should be above it. *shrug* maybe retailers should think about it a bit before deciding to sell something like this.

It's childish, but it's only a problem if you give credence to it.

i hate to be on the opposite side of so many people that i normally agree with but the mocking of the crucifiction is offensive.

you dont take it personally, fine. its still offensive. and moreover i cant see that the creators of this "toy" had any other intentions but to BE offensive and encourage other people to enjoy the offense.

Are you sure?

Do you find movies like Dogma and Saved to be offensive? Keep in mind that Dogma, at least, was a movie written by a Catholic. Buddy Christ and the child-like God were both ideas conceived by a Catholic. He wasn't trying to mock either, although it was often taken that way.

The makers of this toy may very well be Christians trying to demonstrate how silly it is to take things so seriously that you get angry over Christ in a bunny suit.

I wonder if other people got this reference. It made me spit rum and coke on someone in the Admiral's club. If I get beat up, it's your fault.
Sorrrrry! :p

Are you sure?

Do you find movies like Dogma and Saved to be offensive? Keep in mind that Dogma, at least, was a movie written by a Catholic. Buddy Christ and the child-like God were both ideas conceived by a Catholic. He wasn't trying to mock either, although it was often taken that way.

The makers of this toy may very well be Christians trying to demonstrate how silly it is to take things so seriously that you get angry over Christ in a bunny suit.

i dont find that the movie dogma mocks the catholic church at all. it takes catholicism very seriously and uses that as a vehicle for humor.

if you can find some statement by the creator of this "toy" that is has some non offensive purpose, ill take it into consideration. until then it is offensive to mock the crucifiction.

is it worth standing outside a mall on a cold winters day to pressure a local retailer into pulling it from its shelves? not to me but it sure was to those who found it just that offensive. some people take their religion very seriously and are offended by those things that are intended to offend them. go figure.

i hate to be on the opposite side of so many people that i normally agree with but the mocking of the crucifiction is offensive.

you dont take it personally, fine. its still offensive. and moreover i cant see that the creators of this "toy" had any other intentions but to BE offensive and encourage other people to enjoy the offense.

i doesnt matter that it doesnt look like jesus. that is part of the point isnt it? to ridicule a religious icon? it has no other point that i can see but to be sacrilegious. its not a toy, its not innocent fun. its mocking christianity and roman catholicism (or so it seems by the posts on this thread)

i dont have a problem with anyone being offended by something designed to offend them. maybe they should be above it. *shrug* maybe retailers should think about it a bit before deciding to sell something like this.
It is meant to BE offensive, just as, say, Piss Christ or the Mohommed (sp?) cartoons were meant to BE offensive. The point that Smunkee is making is that one shouldn't be taking offence at it. Why? Why does a dress up doll challenge the faith of someone? Does it somehow remove what Jesus did? Does it change what he said? Does it make ME disrespect him or cherish him less because I say him dressed up in a pink bunny suit or tighty whiteys?

It doesn't and it shouldn't because faith must be close to the heart where the outside world cannot affect it.

After that any insult loses its sting and becomes yet another bit of background noise.

what do you guys think? offensive? funny? stupid?

If you don't take Jesus seriously, you might not unquestioningly obey your church leader's instructions! What could be more offensive than that?

It is meant to BE offensive, just as, say, Piss Christ or the Mohommed (sp?) cartoons were meant to BE offensive. The point that Smunkee is making is that one shouldn't be taking offence at it. Why? Why does a dress up doll challenge the faith of someone? Does it somehow remove what Jesus did? Does it change what he said? Does it make ME disrespect him or cherish him less because I say him dressed up in a pink bunny suit or tighty whiteys?

It doesn't and it shouldn't because faith must be close to the heart where the outside world cannot affect it.

After that any insult loses its sting and becomes yet another bit of background noise.

of course one should be above childish attempts to piss one off. however i dont really have a problem with those who cant be above it. who take it too seriously to "tsk tsk" and walk away.

as long as they dont resort to violence or property destruction. to me its fine to be offended by piss christ as long as you dont destroy it or start a riot at its exhibition.

of course one should be above childish attempts to piss one off. however i dont really have a problem with those who cant be above it. who take it too seriously to "tsk tsk" and walk away.

as long as they dont resort to violence or property destruction. to me its fine to be offended by piss christ as long as you dont destroy it or start a riot at its exhibition.
So... what's your point then?

So... what's your point then?

my point is that it is offensive. and that its expectable that someone might be offended by something that is intended to offend.

i was reading through the responses to pootwaddle and they pissed me off. and i hate being on the side of someone i dont particularly respect. but to pretend that he was wrong to be offended by a paperdoll that mocks a central event in christian theology ... well i was pissed.

3 "You shall have no other gods before me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

i·dol (īd'l) Pronunciation Key
n.

An image used as an object of worship.
A false god.
One that is adored, often blindly or excessively.
Something visible but without substance.




Let's do a little logic here:
1. God forbids Christians to have an idol "in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below"
2. Jesus is "in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below"
3. Therefore, Christians can't have an idol in the form of Jesus.
4. An idol is defined by dictionary.com as "an image used as an object of worship".
5. Therefore Christians can't have an image used as an object of worship in the form of Jesus.
6. Therefore, for an image of Jesus to not be an idol it can't be worshiped.
7. Christians worship Jesus by definition.
8. Therefore, Christians can't own/worship images of Jesus.
9. Poot is a Christian.
10. Therefore, Poot can't worship an image of Jesus.
11. Poot says that insults against the image at dressupjesus.com are insults against Jesus.
12. Therefore, to Poot "The image at dressupjesus.com" and "Jesus" are the same thing.
13. As a Christian, Poot must worship Jesus by definition.
14. Therefore, Poot must worship the image at dressupjesus.com.
15. As a Christian, Poot cannot worship the image at dressupjesus.com.
16. Therefore, Poot is doing something his god has specifically said not to do.
17. Therefore, Poot is a worse Christian then (for example) Grave and Idle.
18. Grave and Idle was at last count an atheist.
19. Therefore Poot is a worse Christian then an atheist.

If you can point out a hole in my argument we can discuss that.
Until then this is a solid logical argument, and no amount of "liar"s can change that.

EDIT: Gah! It's jesusdressup.com not dressupjesus.com.
I'm too lazy to change it in my actual post.

my point is that it is offensive. and that its expectable that someone might be offended by something that is intended to offend.

i was reading through the responses to pootwaddle and they pissed me off. and i hate being on the side of someone i dont particularly respect. but to pretend that he was wrong to be offended by a paperdoll that mocks a central event in christian theology ... well i was pissed.
I bolded the key word.
Seriously, if you wanted me to I could mock Christianity a lot more seriously then this could.
What does Jesus-in-a-bunny-suit do to you? Just ignore it if you don't like it.

my point is that it is offensive. and that its expectable that someone might be offended by something that is intended to offend.

i was reading through the responses to pootwaddle and they pissed me off. and i hate being on the side of someone i dont particularly respect. but to pretend that he was wrong to be offended by a paperdoll that mocks a central event in christian theology ... well i was pissed.
I think Smunkee put it well though, it is fine and ok for PootWaddle to state that he was offended, it is also find for him to say WHY he was offended, but he didn't stop there. He went on to attack others (Smunkee in particular) about it, and then just kept going. The more he dug himself into the ground, the more he kept attacking, going against the very creed he was supposedly defending from mockery.

As you said, as long as they don't start a riot or break it, well, Poot was looking for the riot.

Let's do a little logic here:
1. God forbids Christians to have an idol "in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below"
2. Jesus is "in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below"
3. Therefore, Christians can't have an idol in the form of Jesus.
4. An idol is defined by dictionary.com as "an image used as an object of worship".
5. Therefore Christians can't have an image used as an object of worship in the form of Jesus.
6. Therefore, for an image of Jesus to not be an idol it can't be worshiped.
7. Christians worship Jesus by definition.
8. Therefore, Christians can't own/worship images of Jesus.
9. Poot is a Christian.
10. Therefore, Poot can't worship an image of Jesus.
11. Poot says that insults against the image at dressupjesus.com are insults against Jesus.
12. Therefore, to Poot "The image at dressupjesus.com" and "Jesus" are the same thing.
13. As a Christian, Poot must worship Jesus by definition.
14. Therefore, Poot must worship the image at dressupjesus.com.
15. As a Christian, Poot cannot worship the image at dressupjesus.com.
16. Therefore, Poot is doing something his god has specifically said not to do.
17. Therefore, Poot is a worse Christian then (for example) Grave and Idle.
18. Grave and Idle was at last count an atheist.
19. Therefore Poot is a worse Christian then an atheist.

If you can point out a hole in my argument we can discuss that.
Until then this is a solid logical argument, and no amount of "liar"s can change that.

god says "thou shalt not have strange gods before me" he says you shall not make an idol and worship it.

if jesus IS god, there is no problem with worshipping him. jesus is not an idol. an image of jesus is not an idol.


dressup jesus mocks the central figure in poot's religion. he has every right to be offended by it. that YOU arent; that smunkee isnt; that atheists arent; doesnt negate poot's feeling on the subject. who are you (or anyone) to suggest that he is wrong to be offended?

god says "thou shalt not have strange gods before me" he says you shall not make an idol and worship it.

if jesus IS god, there is no problem with worshipping him. jesus is not an idol. an image of jesus is not an idol.

dressup jesus mocks the central figure in poot's religion. he has every right to be offended by it. that YOU arent; that smunkee isnt; that atheists arent; doesnt negate poot's feeling on the subject. who are you (or anyone) to suggest that he is wrong to be offended?

No, God says you shall not make an idol of "anything in the heavens above or the earth beneath or the water below" including himself. (This is seperate from "you shall not have other gods before me".) After all, isn't he in the "heavens above"?
He goes on to say not to worship those idols.
So he says quite clearly that you can't worship an idol of himself there.
It'd kinda defeat the point of all his various rages against the idolaters if Jews, Christians, and Muslims were idolaters also.

EDIT: BTW, the guy who made that site has a site (http://www.normalbobsmith.com/revenge/#)for you and Poot.
Y'know, torture himself.
Kinda drives home our point that a paper doll is not a person (or a deity, as the case may be).
Y'know

No, God says you shall not make an idol of "anything in the heavens above or the earth beneath or the water below" including himself. (This is seperate from "you shall not have other gods before me".) After all, isn't he in the "heavens above"?
He goes on to say not to worship those idols.
So he says quite clearly that you can't worship an idol of himself there.
It'd kinda defeat the point of all his various rages against the idolaters if Jews, Christians, and Muslims were idolaters also.

EDIT: BTW, the guy who made that site has a site (http://www.normalbobsmith.com/revenge/#)for you and Poot.
Y'know, torture himself.
Kinda drives home our point that a paper doll is not a person (or a deity, as the case may be).
Y'know


a billion roman catholics and a couple of hundred million orthodox christians would disagree with you.

No, God says you shall not make an idol of "anything in the heavens above or the earth beneath or the water below" including himself. (This is seperate from "you shall not have other gods before me".) After all, isn't he in the "heavens above"?
He goes on to say not to worship those idols.
So he says quite clearly that you can't worship an idol of himself there.
It'd kinda defeat the point of all his various rages against the idolaters if Jews, Christians, and Muslims were idolaters also.

EDIT: BTW, the guy who made that site has a site (http://www.normalbobsmith.com/revenge/#)for you and Poot.
Y'know, torture himself.
Kinda drives home our point that a paper doll is not a person (or a deity, as the case may be).
Y'know

Not even in the old testament were ALL graven images banned, only the images that took your worhsip away from god.

Exodus 25:18
And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat.

Exodus 26:1
"Moreover, you shall make the tabernacle with ten curtains of fine twined linen and blue and purple and scarlet yarns; you shall make them with cherubim skillfully worked into them.

Exodus 36:35
He made the veil of blue and purple and scarlet yarns and fine twined linen; with cherubim skillfully worked into it he made it.

1 Kings 6:23
In the inner sanctuary he made two cherubim of olivewood, each ten cubits high.

1 Kings 6:29
Around all the walls of the house he carved engraved figures of cherubim and palm trees and open flowers, in the inner and outer rooms.

1 Kings 7:36
And on the surfaces of its stays and on its panels, he carved cherubim, lions, and palm trees, according to the space of each, with wreaths all around.

2 Chronicles 3:7
So he lined the house with gold--its beams, its thresholds, its walls, and its doors--and he carved cherubim on the walls.

And, as always on NSG, It comes down to religion.

I predict three pages or less before someone starts saying communion is symbolic cannibalism.

...
Perhaps Poot just never has actually stuggled or examined his faith?

Too busy screaming and calling people donkeys I guess.

Riiiigth... the guy that posts l33t with a single word to call me an idiot, so I insult him back with l33tshit, and then he pretends like he’s ready for a truce but only to call me an idiot/fool in Japanese this time, so I accept the truce and call him donkey at the same time, and HE’s pretending to be one that's still offended? LMAO That’s priceless. :rolleyes:

Riiiigth... the guy that posts l33t with a single word to call me an idiot, so I insult him back with l33tshit, and then he pretends like he’s ready for a truce but only to call me an idiot/fool in Japanese this time, so I accept the truce and call him donkey at the same time, and HE’s pretending to be one that's still offended? LMAO That’s priceless. :rolleyes:

That sentence was far too complex, surely?

That sentence was far too complex, surely?

You gotta use the commas... the sentence it's a recital of events. I can't really take any of the individual sections out of the sentence and still tell the sequence of events properly.

frankly the only person who gets offended by this is far too insecure about their faith.

what do you guys think? offensive? funny? stupid?... poor taste.

not offensive, but not something I'd do.

Riiiigth... the guy that posts l33t with a single word to call me an idiot, so I insult him back with l33tshit, and then he pretends like he’s ready for a truce but only to call me an idiot/fool in Japanese this time, so I accept the truce and call him donkey at the same time, and HE’s pretending to be one that's still offended? LMAO That’s priceless. :rolleyes:

I think I can speak in complete confidence when I say that nervun was in no way offended by you calling him a donkey. It was far too funny to be offensive when we know that if you type Ass into bablefish "Roba" (donkey) is what it comes up with.

What you have mistaken for being offended there is merely a dig at your earlier error. Not everyone gets offended at every tiny little thing you know ;)

I think I can speak in complete confidence when I say that nervun was in no way offended by you calling him a donkey. It was far too funny to be offensive when we know that if you type Ass into bablefish "Roba" (donkey) is what it comes up with.

What you have mistaken for being offended there is merely a dig at your earlier error. Not everyone gets offended at every tiny little thing you know ;)

It wasn't an error, you both need to use a thesaurus for donkey mkay? Then figure out which word one I was calling him... calling someone an idiot while you are pretending to call for a truce is pure jackassery.

I see it was withdrawn, though.

Christians ruin everything fun, like that Pope Town thing that got banned a while back.

It wasn't an error, you both need to us use a thesaurus for donkey mkay? Then figure out which word one I was calling him... calling someone an idiot while they are pretending to call for a truce is pure jackassery.

No, no, we both understood what you were trying to say. It just didn't work. :) (you can argue it all you like but it's pretty obvious to anyone that cares to read it.. but don't worry, I'm not going to go and compile it into a single post to explain)

I see it was withdrawn, though.

Christians ruin everything fun, like that Pope Town thing that got banned a while back.

Pope Town?

Nope, he says I say the image IS Christ. I say it represents Christ to the person making the object. He says I have advocated a belief in graven image idolotry. I have not, thus he is a liar.

What is a graven image if it is not a representation of God or a god?

What is a graven image if it is not a representation of God or a god?

An image of Graven, a popular cultural figure around the time of the Bible. Known for his hit singles such as "Kicked Out (Of the Garden of Eden)" "Never Listen to a Snake", "My Rib Bone Wife", "Stone Show", and "Immorality Tango".

Pope Town?

Some BBC cartoon about the vatican, featuring the pope on a pogo-stick or something. They got it banned before it was even aired.

i dont find that the movie dogma mocks the catholic church at all. it takes catholicism very seriously and uses that as a vehicle for humor.

if you can find some statement by the creator of this "toy" that is has some non offensive purpose, ill take it into consideration. until then it is offensive to mock the crucifiction.

is it worth standing outside a mall on a cold winters day to pressure a local retailer into pulling it from its shelves? not to me but it sure was to those who found it just that offensive. some people take their religion very seriously and are offended by those things that are intended to offend them. go figure.

I take my faith very seriously and because of that I am not offended. go figure.

What is a graven image if it is not a representation of God or a god?

An image of something other than God that you bow down to or worship. Like a statue of Baal, or a Rams head, or a pillar of stones not dedicated to God etc.

EDIT: I did post this list of graven images that are not forbidden in the OT, as an example to show that act of ingraving and creating images of holy things are not in themselves entirely banned...http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12335078&postcount=220

No, no, we both understood what you were trying to say. It just didn't work. :) (you can argue it all you like but it's pretty obvious to anyone that cares to read it.. but don't worry, I'm not going to go and compile it into a single post to explain)

I'm not worried, here I'll do it for you...

First he responded to my post to Smunkeeville about her not understanding South Lizasauria’s confussion that she a Christian would be linking to something so offensive to orthodox Christians (and others…)
Here, I’ll help you understand his statement, it’s surprisingly simple actually, I’m surprised you missed it... *snip*

... B4K4...

Translation: Idiot (when using this word properly he’s supposed to frag me from behind or ambush etc., or otherwise dispose of me quickly... if the word is used properly, otherwise its just an name of idiot/fool)

Then I said to him:
o0h! u ar3z s00 1337!!!111!! u 4TW, n07…

Ua jju ra go

Translation;
Oh you are so leet, you for the win, not.

So what? (What the fuck do I care what you think etc.,)

Then he posts what looks like he's calling a truce...
Fine, fine... バカ。

All better?

But the Translation is;
Fine, fine... Idiot

All better?

Then I said:
Sure. ろば

Translation:
Sure. Jackass.

Then he translated the word ろば to mean donkey, and assumed I called him ass...
If you're going to trade insults, you should at least attempt to make sure that said language actually uses the same insult instead of attempting to use Bablefish and hope it comes out ok.

But I didn’t call him donkey, or ass.

An image of something other than God that you bow down to or worship. Like a statue of Baal, or a Rams head, or a pillar of stones not dedicated to God etc.

if it's "dedicated to God" do you feel like it's okay to worship it?

I take my faith very seriously and because of that I am not offended. go figure.

Instead of just saying, I choose for myself to not be offended, you feel compelled to insinuate that it is because you take your faith very seriously that you are not offended, thus implying a jab that anyone that feels offended must somehow not be taking their faith seriously... And you think I'm mean to other Christians? ;)

Translation: Idiot (when using this word properly he’s supposed to frag me from behind or ambush etc., or otherwise dispose of me quickly... if the word is used properly, otherwise its just an name of idiot/fool)
That's the FIRST time I have EVER heard that L33t has a proper usage, especially as B4K4 is from MegaTokyo... that's just...

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at it.

Then I said to him:

Translation;
Oh you are so leet, you for the win, not.

So what? (What the fuck do I care what you think etc.,)

Then he posts what looks like he's calling a truce...


But the Translation is;
Fine, fine... Idiot
All better?
Actually I was reacting to you l33tness and moved it back into Japanese so it's all nice and proper, since you seemingly dislike l33t. I didn't propose a truce because I STILL feel my original comment holds.

Translation:
Sure. Jackass.

Then he translated the word ろば to mean donkey, and assumed I called him ass...

But I didn’t call him donkey, or ass.
And here we have Poot's famous "I didn't say THAT, even though I said it". ろば (驢馬) MEANS donkey, Japanese doesn't have a term for jackass and it sure as hell ain't an insult. It doesn't make any sense (just like translating most Japanese curses into English wouldn't be insulting to you). No, you called me a donkey no matter what you were attempting to do with Bable Fish. As for the assuming you called me an ass, well, if you don't understand that, in English, ass, jackass, and donkey all refere to the same animal (and as a slang term for the postier of human anatomy), there's just no help for you.

if it's "dedicated to God" do you feel like it's okay to worship it?

Was God present between the Cheribim wings in the Holy of Holies? Did God tell them to worship there?

Did they worship the cheribim or God? Your position dictates that they must be worshiping the graven images in the temple, but that would be wrong, they were were worshiping God and so the images there were not banned.

Instead of just saying, I choose for myself to not be offended, you feel compelled to insinuate that it is because you take your faith very seriously that you are not offended, thus implying a jab that anyone that feels offended must somehow not be taking their faith seriously... And you think I'm mean to other Christians? ;)

actually you have a persecution complex, I think. She said "people who take their religion seriously are offended, go figure" and I said "I take my religion seriously and because of that I am not offended, go figure"

this has nothing to do with you.

in fact, it doesn't even have anything to do with Ashmoria, because I really don't care if you guys are offended, you have a right to be.

I am disappointed in you, because you attacked me, and it wasn't very nice. Then you go on to attack other Christians by calling them liars.

I could tell you that after a lot of prayer, I found out that none of this has anything to do with you personally, and I am just pretty annoyed with the body of Christ in general today, and I intend to seek out ways to deal with that.

As far as my own problem with what I believe to be unnecessary and wrong images (or the use of those images) of Jesus, I would guess that's my own problem, as it is yours (although slightly modified)

Was God present between the Cheribim wings in the Holy of Holies? Did God tell them to worship there?

Did they worship the cheribim or God? Your position dictates that they must be worshiping the graven images in the temple, but that would be wrong, they were were worshiping God and so the images there were not banned.

I think you misrepresent my position.

actually you have a persecution complex, I think. She said "people who take their religion seriously are offended, go figure" and I said "I take my religion seriously and because of that I am not offended, go figure"

this has nothing to do with you.

in fact, it doesn't even have anything to do with Ashmoria, because I really don't care if you guys are offended, you have a right to be.

I am disappointed in you, because you attacked me, and it wasn't very nice. Then you go on to attack other Christians by calling them liars.

I could tell you that after a lot of prayer, I found out that none of this has anything to do with you personally, and I am just pretty annoyed with the body of Christ in general today, and I intend to seek out ways to deal with that.

As far as my own problem with what I believe to be unnecessary and wrong images (or the use of those images) of Jesus, I would guess that's my own problem, as it is yours (although slightly modified)

I was disappointed that you would release that ugly tool to the people in this forum (opf all places, not that it would be kept secret but that a believer would give them such a tool and they didn’t even have to find it on their own), but I wasn't really angry with you. I was long winded because you didn't seem to even understand the objection posted to you... I don't apologize for calling Jocabia a liar though , I think he was lying.

But for you I apologize, honestly and sincerely, and ask for your forgiveness if I went too far with you. You know Christ, and it shows, and I know it, even if we don’t see eye to eye on many things…

I'm not worried, here I'll do it for you...

First he responded to my post to Smunkeeville about her not understanding South Lizasauria’s confussion that she a Christian would be linking to something so offensive to orthodox Christians (and others…)


Translation: Idiot (when using this word properly he’s supposed to frag me from behind or ambush etc., or otherwise dispose of me quickly... if the word is used properly, otherwise its just an name of idiot/fool)

Then I said to him:


Translation;
Oh you are so leet, you for the win, not.

So what? (What the fuck do I care what you think etc.,)

Then he posts what looks like he's calling a truce...


But the Translation is;
Fine, fine... Idiot

All better?

Then I said:


Translation:
Sure. Jackass.

Then he translated the word ろば to mean donkey, and assumed I called him ass...


But I didn’t call him donkey, or ass.

But that's the whole funny point. ろばーRoba　DOES mean donkey, its the ONLY meaning for those characters, because there is no such insult in Japanese. Inadvertently, although we understood what you meant, you did call him a donkey.

I actually have 3 (physical) dictionaries here, 2 have no entry for jackass but the third one does for which it gives alternatives as とんま（tonma) or　ばか(baka). Babelfish has no entry for jackass (it just returns jackass in romaji). But it does return ろば for Ass which as we've explained actually means Donkey.

The entries for Ass in each one read as Roba (donkey) and Baka (fool or idiot) so it doesnt look like you used a physical dictionary.

If you're going to trade insults, you should at least attempt to make sure that said language actually uses the same insult instead of attempting to use Bablefish and hope it comes out ok.


and


I believe he was TRYING for ass. He GOT donkey, and Japanese doesn't even use that particular insult so it really sounds (reads?) strange.

Edit: Got beaten to it. Nice to have another Japanese speaker on the board (as opposed to my poor skills and Distilla's very good ones).


Which was fair comment given what my dictionaries say and what babelfish churns out.

I think you misrepresent my position.

On purpose, because I thought your question misrepresented my position.

On purpose, because I thought your question misrepresented my position.

interesting... I didn't mean to misrepresent, I was trying to gain clarification.

anyway, can we call a truce for this thread? I noticed you apologized. I am sorry I took a problem out on you without prayer to figure out first what my problem was.

interesting... I didn't mean to misrepresent, I was trying to gain clarification.

To answer that, then… In my understanding, an object should not be worshiped, ever. A place to focus your thoughts and think of God and hear his presence is not forbidden, even if that 'place' is a image or statue etc.,. so long as it is Christ/God that you are focused on, not the secular image/statue.

anyway, can we call a truce for this thread? Between you and me, yes. And if I have to guess I would bet that Ashmoria can't stand being on my side much longer ;) , and with that in mind I think we can assume that this truce will be good enough for her too, yet I can't speak for her

If the others continue to jump all over me with their crap though I'm not promising not the respond to them... fair enough?

That's the FIRST time I have EVER heard that L33t has a proper usage, especially as B4K4 is from MegaTokyo... that's just...

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at it.



I'm not the only one that interprets it that way...


The B4k4 form of the japanese term was sighted on a site known as MegaTokyo. The main artist, Piro, of the 'manga'-style comic updated there has made it into a new warping of the 'romaji' form of Japanese (that is the roman alphabet form of the language so we can sound out the artistic characters that make up their language) and made a 'leet' linguistics version out of it, calling it b4k4speak (what B4k4^2 and B4k4 are, which are his trademark one-liners before he frags you out of nowhere in an FPS. "b4k4^2 is l33tspeak for 'baka baka' - and might be the last thing you hear after confronting the dangerously cute, pigtailed PiroQuake on the back. ph33r." link (http://www.thecomputershow.com/stormforge/b4k4-1ns4n30/b4k4.html)

If you didn't mean it like that then I take back my initial reaction...

I take my faith very seriously and because of that I am not offended. go figure.

did you miss the word SOME?

obviously not every religious person would be offended. equally obviously some religious people ARE.

i am not contending that you are wrong in not being offended by this stupid sacrilegious webpage. im am contending that you are wrong in suggesting that poot is wrong for being offended by it.

different people react to things in different ways.