The changing face of Jesus. Good idea or bad?

by Syl Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:41 pm

Comics giant DC has been criticised for intending to show Jesus as a bumbling sidekick to superhero Sunman.
The comic was to claim God was disappointed with Jesus so sends him back down to earth to learn some tricks of one of the popular superhero's.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/760807/jesus-christ-superhero-comic-book-dc

The changing face of Jesus. Good idea or bad? Latest-news-760807

The changing face of Jesus. Good idea or bad? Latest-news-760807

Or...

The changing face of Jesus. Good idea or bad? Second-Coming-Cover-1-Copy

by Guest Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:45 pm

The changing face of Jesus. Good idea or bad? New-old-481391

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/481391/Jesus-Christ-real-face

by Syl Wed Feb 20, 2019 3:05 pm

The way Jesus has always been portrayed as the tall handsome fair skinned blue eyed man was as mythical as the way the comic strip was intending to portray him.
Maybe Jesus, given the popularity of the biblical stories featuring him dont seem to interest todays kids, could do with a new overhaul....and superhero's and their sidekicks seem to be as popular today as they have ever been.

Not being religious I dont find it offensive, do others?

by eddie Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:34 pm

I don’t find many things offensive so I’m not one to comment, but if I did...

No, I don’t find it offensive.

by Ben Reilly Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:40 pm

I would imagine that many Christians will be deeply offended by this and, remembering back to my believing days, I have to say I understand. I was taught that things like this are Satan's way of getting people to mock Jesus or not take him seriously.

by Guest Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:11 pm

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:I would imagine that many Christians will be deeply offended by this and, remembering back to my believing days, I have to say I understand. I was taught that things like this are Satan's way of getting people to mock Jesus or not take him seriously.

Why and i am intersted as why?
The picture shows Jesus doing what he taught, so i am at odds with anyone being offended at this.
So am interest how this is mocking to jesus ben?>

by Ben Reilly Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:20 pm

Thor wrote:
>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:I would imagine that many Christians will be deeply offended by this and, remembering back to my believing days, I have to say I understand. I was taught that things like this are Satan's way of getting people to mock Jesus or not take him seriously.

Why and i am intersted as why?
The picture shows Jesus doing what he taught, so i am at odds with anyone being offended at this.
So am interest how this is mocking to jesus ben?>

To make him the sidekick of a superhero will definitely piss off a lot of Christians. I don't know if you heard about the controversy around the Kevin Smith movie "Dogma," which was about Christianity, but a lot of Christians protested the movie despite not having seen it or knowing what it was about.

by Guest Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:23 pm

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:
Thor wrote:

Why and i am intersted as why?
The picture shows Jesus doing what he taught, so i am at odds with anyone being offended at this.
So am interest how this is mocking to jesus ben?>

To make him the sidekick of a superhero will definitely piss off a lot of Christians. I don't know if you heard about the controversy around the Kevin Smith movie "Dogma," which was about Christianity, but a lot of Christians protested the movie despite not having seen it or knowing what it was about.

I love that film, but again how would that piss off christians based on a picture here?

by The Devil, You Know Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:11 pm

he certainly wasn't a blue eyed blond, but I doubt he was black as the ace of spades either. He would have been a horny handed son of the soil and darker skinned for sure, if he existed at all.

by Guest Wed Feb 20, 2019 10:15 pm

The Devil, You Know wrote:he certainly wasn't a blue eyed blond, but I doubt he was black as the ace of spades either. He would have been a horny handed son of the soil and darker skinned for sure, if he existed at all.

How the fuck is that black, based on african perceptions?

Its actually based on semtic people

by 'Wolfie Thu Feb 21, 2019 1:33 am

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:I would imagine that many Christians will be deeply offended by this and, remembering back to my believing days, I have to say I understand. I was taught that things like this are Satan's way of getting people to mock Jesus or not take him seriously.

Not really, Ben...

A few million evangelical and fundi' Christians across the US "Bible belt" may see it, and a few hundred thousand might be unsettled by it, and a few thousand nutters might get angry..

Likewise, a few thousand people around Italy and France might also get a bit cranky for a few days, until their minds wander back to more mundane things, like crumbling local economies..

With over 2 billion Christians in the world though, (with 1.2 to 1.3 billion being Catholics..), even if a few million had their noses put out of joint, that's a very small proportion.

And probably greatly outnumbered by the increasing numbers of Christians in Africa and S.E. Asia..

by veya_victaous Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:42 am

The changing face of Jesus. Good idea or bad? Buddy-christ-dashboard-figure

Probably less offensive than being a side kick The changing face of Jesus. Good idea or bad? 2190311264

by Fred Moletrousers Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:44 am

It's an odd sort of world when even the mildest of criticisms or fun-poking at gays, lesbians, transsexuals, ethnic minorities, etc., etc., almost automatically attracts a torrent of angry reaction and even threats of violence from self-appointed arbiters and guardians of freedom and political correctness, yet many of those same people show absolutely no compunction in ridiculing, condemning and deliberately causing the most extreme offence towards Christians.

Perhaps God knew what things were going to be like when he taught us to turn the other cheek.

by HoratioTarr Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:44 am

Syl wrote:The way Jesus has always been portrayed as the tall handsome fair skinned blue eyed man was as mythical as the way the comic strip was intending to portray him.
Maybe Jesus, given the popularity of the biblical stories featuring him dont seem to interest todays kids, could do with a new overhaul....and superhero's and their sidekicks seem to be as popular today as they have ever been.

Not being religious I dont find it offensive, do others?

He probably was married and had kids...shock horror!

by Guest Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:56 am

HoratioTarr wrote:
Syl wrote:The way Jesus has always been portrayed as the tall handsome fair skinned blue eyed man was as mythical as the way the comic strip was intending to portray him.
Maybe Jesus, given the popularity of the biblical stories featuring him dont seem to interest todays kids, could do with a new overhaul....and superhero's and their sidekicks seem to be as popular today as they have ever been.

Not being religious I dont find it offensive, do others?

He probably was married and had kids...shock horror!

Very possible, that he was married Horatio

In fact it would have been out of the ordinary not to, based on his claimed line of david

The Gospel of Philip claims he kissed Mary Magdalene often and favoured her above all the apostles. Which if they were married that would make sense. It was because of Paul and Peter, that she got dimninished to the background of the story of Jesus, but could not write her out totally. Being as she is after the resurrection, one of the first to see Jesus alive again. She clearly to me was far more important to the story of jesus, but Christainity really became Paulianity. There is meant to be around 80 gosples and works written about Jesus and yet many werenot included when the New Testament was conpiled centuries later.

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/GPhilip-Meyer.html

If there had not been sexist women haters like Paul or Peter, Christianity may have turned out far different and more inclusive to other religions with a woman at the right hand of Jesus and not Peter. Sadly she was pushed into the sidelines by later Christians

by Syl Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:27 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Syl wrote:The way Jesus has always been portrayed as the tall handsome fair skinned blue eyed man was as mythical as the way the comic strip was intending to portray him.
Maybe Jesus, given the popularity of the biblical stories featuring him dont seem to interest todays kids, could do with a new overhaul....and superhero's and their sidekicks seem to be as popular today as they have ever been.

Not being religious I dont find it offensive, do others?

He probably was married and had kids...shock horror!

He could have been gay.

I do believe a charismatic man named Jesus did exist in that area back then, he could have been the equivalant of a missionary, caring for the sick and poor maybe?

by Syl Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:29 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:It's an odd sort of world when even the mildest of criticisms or fun-poking at gays, lesbians, transsexuals, ethnic minorities, etc., etc., almost automatically attracts a torrent of angry reaction and even threats of violence from self-appointed arbiters and guardians of freedom and political correctness, yet many of those same people show absolutely no compunction in ridiculing, condemning and deliberately causing the most extreme offence towards Christians.

Perhaps God knew what things were going to be like when he taught us to turn the other cheek.

Thats a really good point Fred.

by Guest Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:54 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:It's an odd sort of world when even the mildest of criticisms or fun-poking at gays, lesbians, transsexuals, ethnic minorities, etc., etc., almost automatically attracts a torrent of angry reaction and even threats of violence from self-appointed arbiters and guardians of freedom and political correctness, yet many of those same people show absolutely no compunction in ridiculing, condemning and deliberately causing the most extreme offence towards Christians.

Perhaps God knew what things were going to be like when he taught us to turn the other cheek.

I think you will find in certain parts of the US poking fun at Christianity invokes a violent reaction
As it does when people poke fun at Islam, in the islamic world
So much so people have been butchered for this. Where in parts of the world you cannot even be critical of islam, as you could face the death penalty. I thought you were an advocate of free speech mate?

So how on earth Fred you can even attempt to make a comparrison based on beleiefs compared to who people biological are like being gays or their ethnicity. Is miles removed. They simple cannot wake up the next day and decide they are not this, as its not a belief. As where within religion, it is a belief and when its based on a god, it generally always has hateful outcomes, whenit is challenged. That is the worst aspect of the Abrahamic beliefs, which has had over 2000 years history of such intolerance.

So for you to compare this, to what people actually are in their ethnicity or gay. Has absolutely zero comparrison
I am against anyone delivering threats because their religious beliefs are against homosexuality or threats to people who are religious. That is wrong and I will always condemn those hateful who do this, but you cannot compare beliefs next to what people biological are ethnically or based on their sexual preference. Hence your argument is not even the same playing field

You cannot force yourself for example to be attracted to a man. You can howvever choose to believe in what ever religious belief you want

Hence your argument holds no validity mate

All beliefs are open to ridicule and criticism. As they should be. As that is not attacking the individual but the belief

If people wnat to be critical of homosexuality, they actually can do so. That is their right to do so No law sacks people based off their religious beliefs, they are also protected by law. What you cannot do, is allow your beliefs to then discriminate against someone else. As nobody can do this to you also, based off your beliefs

So your argument is a red herring

Its alwys okay to take the piss no matter who people are. As that is done with a view of light humour and not hate

When its done with hate that is different and no Christian like yourself should suffer hate because of your religious belief and I would defend you to the hill for the right to follow your religious belief. Even as an athiest

by Fred Moletrousers Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:24 pm

Syl wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:It's an odd sort of world when even the mildest of criticisms or fun-poking at gays, lesbians, transsexuals, ethnic minorities, etc., etc., almost automatically attracts a torrent of angry reaction and even threats of violence from self-appointed arbiters and guardians of freedom and political correctness, yet many of those same people show absolutely no compunction in ridiculing, condemning and deliberately causing the most extreme offence towards Christians.

Perhaps God knew what things were going to be like when he taught us to turn the other cheek.

Thats a really good point Fred.

Thanks, Syl.

I thought it was a point worth making, even though I'm not a particularly good or committed Christian such as, for example, VOD or Heavenly Father (God bless 'em both).

I was educated and baptised as a High Church Anglican but now attend Methodist Holy Communion because I don't like the vestments, idolatry and ritual of my original Church and much admire the informality, fellowship and genuine friendship of the Wesleyans.

I may even convert, but that is not such an extreme step as, for example, revoking Roman Catholicism or Islam, because the Anglican and Methodist liturgies are so similar. (Charles Wesley was, after all, an ordained Anglican priest).

In the meantime, I have no desire to persuade others to adopt or even understand my faith...I would have made a lousy missionary, apart from demonstrating a modest ability, sexually speaking...and I did not at all enjoy my one and only foray into what I had mistakenly assumed would be meaningful discussion of the subject in this forum.

by Guest Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:28 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Syl wrote:

Thats a really good point Fred.

Thanks, Syl.

I thought it was a point worth making, even though I'm not a particularly good or committed Christian such as, for example, VOD or Heavenly Father (God bless 'em both).

I was educated and baptised as a High Church Anglican but now attend Methodist Holy Communion because I don't like the vestments, idolatry and ritual of my original Church and much admire the informality, fellowship and genuine friendship of the Wesleyans.

I may even convert, but that is not such an extreme step as, for example, revoking Roman Catholicism or Islam, because the Anglican and Methodist liturgies are so similar. (Charles Wesley was, after all, an ordained Anglican priest).

In the meantime, I have no desire to persuade others to adopt or even understand my faith...I would have made a lousy missionary, apart from demonstrating a modest ability, sexually speaking...and I did not at all enjoy my one and only foray into what I had mistakenly assumed would be meaningful discussion of the subject in this forum.

Simple question Fred

Should beliefs be protected by blasphemy laws?

Yes or no?

Then explain how that is even equivalent to homophobia hate speech?

Everyone has a right to beliefs

Being homosexual is not a belief

Do you understand that mate?

by Original Quill Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:04 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:
Syl wrote:The way Jesus has always been portrayed as the tall handsome fair skinned blue eyed man was as mythical as the way the comic strip was intending to portray him.
Maybe Jesus, given the popularity of the biblical stories featuring him dont seem to interest todays kids, could do with a new overhaul....and superhero's and their sidekicks seem to be as popular today as they have ever been.

Not being religious I dont find it offensive, do others?

He probably was married and had kids...shock horror!

According to Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, in their book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Jesus and the Magdalene, Mary, were married. As they point out, as didge does too, it would have been very untoward for a man of 30-years not to have been married. At the time of the crucifixion, Mary was pregnant, and she soon after fled to Egypt, where she gave birth to Sarah, Christ's daughter.

Mary and Sarah traveled across North Africa, and thence by boat to Saint Baume, in Provence, Southern France. Mary and Sarah were received and taken in by the French, and to this day in France, the 'Mary', or 'Our Lady' (Notre Dame), refers to the mother of Sarah, not the mother of Jesus. Sarah eventually married into the Merovingian royal family, which spread her connection into many European royal families, including Mary, Queen of Scots (through the de Guise family).

The anti-feminist resentment of the disciples, they say, was owing to the sexual relationship that developed between the Magdalene--originally, merely a disciple--and Jesus. In short, they were jealous.

by Fred Moletrousers Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:50 pm

Original Quill wrote:
HoratioTarr wrote:

He probably was married and had kids...shock horror!

According to Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, in their book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Jesus and the Magdalene, Mary, were married. As they point out, as didge does too, it would have been very untoward for a man of 30-years not to have been married. At the time of the crucifixion, Mary was pregnant, and she soon after fled to Egypt, where she gave birth to Sarah, Christ's daughter.

Mary and Sarah traveled across North Africa, and thence by boat to Southern France. Mary and Sarah were received and taken in by the French, and to this day in France, the 'Mary', or 'Our Lady' (Notre Dame), refers to the mother of Sarah, not the mother of Jesus. Sarah eventually married into the Merovingian royal family, which spread her connection into many European royal families, including Mary, Queen of Scots (through the de Guise family).

The anti-feminist resentment of the disciples, they say, was owing to the sexual relationship that developed between the Magdalene--originally, merely a disciple--and Jesus. In short, they were jealous.

An absolutely fascinating aspect of modern theology. I recommend also a more detailed and critical look at Leonardo da Vinci's painting,The Last Supper.

by Fred Moletrousers Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:53 pm

Thor wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Thanks, Syl.

I thought it was a point worth making, even though I'm not a particularly good or committed Christian such as, for example, VOD or Heavenly Father (God bless 'em both).

I was educated and baptised as a High Church Anglican but now attend Methodist Holy Communion because I don't like the vestments, idolatry and ritual of my original Church and much admire the informality, fellowship and genuine friendship of the Wesleyans.

I may even convert, but that is not such an extreme step as, for example, revoking Roman Catholicism or Islam, because the Anglican and Methodist liturgies are so similar. (Charles Wesley was, after all, an ordained Anglican priest).

In the meantime, I have no desire to persuade others to adopt or even understand my faith...I would have made a lousy missionary, apart from demonstrating a modest ability, sexually speaking...and I did not at all enjoy my one and only foray into what I had mistakenly assumed would be meaningful discussion of the subject in this forum.

Simple question Fred

Should beliefs be protected by blasphemy laws?

Yes or no?

Then explain how that is even equivalent to homophobia hate speech?

Everyone has a right to beliefs

Being homosexual is not a belief

Do you understand that mate?

Where my personal faith and belief are concerned, I follow the advice of Benjamin Disraeli: I do not complain; neither do I explain.

by Original Quill Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:18 pm

The changing face of Jesus. Good idea or bad? Da-vinci-s-last-supper-skip-the-line-tickets-and-guided-tour_header-9730

There is a lot of symbolism in da Vinci's The Last Supper. Much of it goes to the woman, to the right of Jesus. Is she Mary, or is she a very, very feminine John as the Church says?

Add to that, the pronounced 'V' that the two bodies create between them in the way they lean. It is argued that this represents shape of the feminine (vagina), a clue of what da Vinci intended.

by Guest Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:20 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Thor wrote:

Simple question Fred

Should beliefs be protected by blasphemy laws?

Yes or no?

Then explain how that is even equivalent to homophobia hate speech?

Everyone has a right to beliefs

Being homosexual is not a belief

Do you understand that mate?

Where my personal faith and belief are concerned, I follow the advice of Benjamin Disraeli: I do not complain; neither do I explain.

Good for you, but that really never answered my questions

by veya_victaous Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:18 am

Fred Moletrousers wrote:It's an odd sort of world when even the mildest of criticisms or fun-poking at gays, lesbians, transsexuals, ethnic minorities, etc., etc., almost automatically attracts a torrent of angry reaction and even threats of violence from self-appointed arbiters and guardians of freedom and political correctness, yet many of those same people show absolutely no compunction in ridiculing, condemning and deliberately causing the most extreme offence towards Christians.

Perhaps God knew what things were going to be like when he taught us to turn the other cheek.

Cause those are all things that are not choices Wink

To be Fair I am Openly a Heretic, Abrahamic god demands my death Smile

So they did start it Razz

by Fred Moletrousers Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:30 am

Thor wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Where my personal faith and belief are concerned, I follow the advice of Benjamin Disraeli: I do not complain; neither do I explain.

Good for you, but that really never answered my questions

Since when has anyone been obliged to answer your questions, particularly when they are pointless?

However, since you ask...Blasphemy laws in England were abolished more than a decade ago during one of the periodic clear-outs of legislation that had become irrelevant and unenforceable. They were enshrined in Common Law only because originally as ecclesiastical law they dated back to medieval times when they were enforced, usually with brutality, torture and execution on the grounds that an offence against the Church, Roman Catholic or Church of England depending on the period of history, was deemed to be an offence against the Crown.

If you believe that I would support any of that, then do continue with your silly delusion.

Had you read my post properly you might have noticed that I was referring specifically to the sort of insults, opprobrium and actual threats, usually in the social media, that various minority groups suffer...including gay people and professed Christians.

Your argument appears to suggest that you regard the rights of Christians to be protected against such behaviour to be inferior to those of homosexuals.

How one is "born" has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

by Guest Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:37 am

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Thor wrote:

Good for you, but that really never answered my questions

Since when has anyone been obliged to answer your questions, particularly when they are pointless?

However, since you ask...Blasphemy laws in England were abolished more than a decade ago during one of the periodic clear-outs of legislation that had become irrelevant and unenforceable. They were enshrined in Common Law only because originally as ecclesiastical law they dated back to medieval times when they were enforced, usually with brutality, torture and execution on the grounds that an offence against the Church, Roman Catholic or Church of England depending on the period of history, was deemed to be an offence against the Crown.

If you believe that I would support any of that, then do continue with your silly delusion.

Had you read my post properly you might have noticed that I was referring specifically to the sort of insults, opprobrium and actual threats, usually in the social media, that various minority groups suffer...including gay people and professed Christians.

Your argument appears to suggest that you regard the rights of Christians to be protected against such behaviour to be inferior to those of homosexuals.

How one is "born" has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

I thought the point of debate and discssuion help with questions?

Where didI claim you supported Blasphemy laws?

Never did

The above still does not actualky answer the points I was making around how people are next to what people believe

Both aspects are protected under UK law. In other words you cannot discriminate against people also based on their beliefs

Not claim one is superior to the other

What I am saying and will repeat for you, people cannot change how they were born

People can change what they believe in, as its a choice

So its an important distinction between the two

For example if I am critical of Christianity, that does not mean I am critical to a believer, as its the belief I am critical of
Being critical of homoseuxality is being critical of a homosexual themselves

That is the massive distinction you are missing between the two

by Fred Moletrousers Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:38 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:It's an odd sort of world when even the mildest of criticisms or fun-poking at gays, lesbians, transsexuals, ethnic minorities, etc., etc., almost automatically attracts a torrent of angry reaction and even threats of violence from self-appointed arbiters and guardians of freedom and political correctness, yet many of those same people show absolutely no compunction in ridiculing, condemning and deliberately causing the most extreme offence towards Christians.

Perhaps God knew what things were going to be like when he taught us to turn the other cheek.

Cause those are all things that are not choices

To be Fair I am Openly a Heretic, Abrahamic god demands my death
So they did start it

So if I chooseto convert to Islam I should consider myself to be a fair target for online threats and abuse? How odd.

Perhaps I should start a campaign of internet stalking, abuse and threats against you for being a Heretic. After all, you chose to be what you are.

And I think you will find that it was a very, very long time ago since Christians of whatever persuasion burned anyone at the stake in the name of the Almighty.

by Fred Moletrousers Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:41 am

Thor wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Since when has anyone been obliged to answer your questions, particularly when they are pointless?

However, since you ask...Blasphemy laws in England were abolished more than a decade ago during one of the periodic clear-outs of legislation that had become irrelevant and unenforceable. They were enshrined in Common Law only because originally as ecclesiastical law they dated back to medieval times when they were enforced, usually with brutality, torture and execution on the grounds that an offence against the Church, Roman Catholic or Church of England depending on the period of history, was deemed to be an offence against the Crown.

If you believe that I would support any of that, then do continue with your silly delusion.

Had you read my post properly you might have noticed that I was referring specifically to the sort of insults, opprobrium and actual threats, usually in the social media, that various minority groups suffer...including gay people and professed Christians.

Your argument appears to suggest that you regard the rights of Christians to be protected against such behaviour to be inferior to those of homosexuals.

How one is "born" has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

I thought the point of debate and discssuion help with questions?

Where didI claim you supported Blasphemy laws?

Never did

The above still does not actualky answer the points I was making around how people are next to what people believe

Both aspects are protected under UK law. In other words you cannot discriminate against people also based on their beliefs

Not claim one is superior to the other

What I am saying and will repeat for you, people cannot change how they were born

People can change what they believe in, as its a choice

So its an important distinction between the two

For example if I am critical of Christianity, that does not mean I am critical to a believer, as its the belief I am critical of
Being critical of homoseuxality is being critical of a homosexual themselves

That is the massive distinction you are missing between the two

What part of the words "...insults, opprobrium and actual threats..." do you not understand?

by Guest Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:46 am

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Thor wrote:

I thought the point of debate and discssuion help with questions?

Where didI claim you supported Blasphemy laws?

Never did

The above still does not actualky answer the points I was making around how people are next to what people believe

Both aspects are protected under UK law. In other words you cannot discriminate against people also based on their beliefs

Not claim one is superior to the other

What I am saying and will repeat for you, people cannot change how they were born

People can change what they believe in, as its a choice

So its an important distinction between the two

For example if I am critical of Christianity, that does not mean I am critical to a believer, as its the belief I am critical of
Being critical of homoseuxality is being critical of a homosexual themselves

That is the massive distinction you are missing between the two

What part of the words "...insults, opprobrium and actual threats..." do you not understand?

Still not grasping this

If I mock, insult Jesus, is that mocking Christians?

No, as I am mocking a person we lack even credible evidence existed, who was diefied by the followers of Paul

If I mock, insult homosexuality, that is mocking homosexuals

So what part are yo not grasping here?

Again Christians and homosexuals rightfully have protection under the law, from discrimination

beliefs rightly have no protection under UK law, as they are not people but beliefs

Hence to mock and insult a belief is always going to be okay. People do this every day with left and right wing beliefs

by eddie Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:00 am

Anything is up for mockery. That’s what free speech is all about.

by Syl Sat Feb 23, 2019 12:49 am

Depends who the free speech is aimed at though..compare what happened when the Charlie Hebdo magazine mocked one religious figure to the DC publication mocking Jesus.

One ends up in a bloody masacre....one organises a disapproving petition.

.

by eddie Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:03 am

Syl wrote:Depends who the free speech is aimed at though..compare what happened when the Charlie Hebdo magazine mocked one religious figure to the DC publication mocking Jesus.

One ends up in a bloody masacre....one organises a disapproving petition.

I don’t think I get your point. Is it okay to mock anyone or not? Might be me reading what you’re saying and not understanding.

by Syl Sat Feb 23, 2019 1:26 am

eddie wrote:
Syl wrote:Depends who the free speech is aimed at though..compare what happened when the Charlie Hebdo magazine mocked one religious figure to the DC publication mocking Jesus.

One ends up in a bloody masacre....one organises a disapproving petition.

I don’t think I get your point. Is it okay to mock anyone or not? Might be me reading what you’re saying and not understanding.

Simple (yet confused) answer is....I waver between the two opinions.
Personally portraying Jesus as a bumbling sidekick doesn't bother me, though obviously it's disrespectful to many.
But then i read Freds first post, and I agree with him .

And then there is the depths some people go to when mocking, some people are deliberately cruel, and I dont think that's OK...do you?.

by Original Quill Sat Feb 23, 2019 3:32 am

"Thou shalt put no other idol before me."

That phrase has caused more trouble in Abrahamic religions, than perhaps any other. It is the source of iconoclastic movements in both Islam and Judo-Christian religions.

Some 600-years older, Christianity has gotten over it, particularly with the beautiful art in Churches from Renaissance days. But, as we see, it's a standard that still gets Muslims upset.

We are so condemning of Muslims, yet there it is, the same proscription in our religion. They are the same religion.

by veya_victaous Sat Feb 23, 2019 8:00 am

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:It's an odd sort of world when even the mildest of criticisms or fun-poking at gays, lesbians, transsexuals, ethnic minorities, etc., etc., almost automatically attracts a torrent of angry reaction and even threats of violence from self-appointed arbiters and guardians of freedom and political correctness, yet many of those same people show absolutely no compunction in ridiculing, condemning and deliberately causing the most extreme offence towards Christians.

Perhaps God knew what things were going to be like when he taught us to turn the other cheek.

Cause those are all things that are not choices

To be Fair I am Openly a Heretic, Abrahamic god demands my death
So they did start it

So if I chooseto convert to Islam I should consider myself to be a fair target for online threats and abuse? How odd.

Perhaps I should start a campaign of internet stalking, abuse and threats against you for being a Heretic. After all, you chose to be what you are.

And I think you will find that it was a very, very long time ago since Christians of whatever persuasion burned anyone at the stake in the name of the Almighty.

If you want to promote Islam then you're also fair game. And they definitely also get just as much or more than Christians

You could, Christians do that to people regularly, although they do tend to pick on people who didn't make a choice and until the recent turn of public opinion couldn't defend themselves.

So why do you support a group that burns people at the stake? It doesn't matter how long ago it was, it is part of Christianity, You support it? want to bring it back?
If not then you should be quite happy to see an Evil Institution be purged from humanity so the real Truth can reign.
Or are you some hypocrite, quite Happy so get the benefits of the Science that Christians Burned men for? While Still Praising the Frauds, the murderers and rapists that tried to deny Humanity the Bounty of Science Rolling Eyes

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 23, 2019 3:02 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

So if I chooseto convert to Islam I should consider myself to be a fair target for online threats and abuse? How odd.

Perhaps I should start a campaign of internet stalking, abuse and threats against you for being a Heretic. After all, you chose to be what you are.

And I think you will find that it was a very, very long time ago since Christians of whatever persuasion burned anyone at the stake in the name of the Almighty.

If you want to promote Islam then you're also fair game. And they definitely also get just as much or more than Christians

You could, Christians do that to people regularly, although they do tend to pick on people who didn't make a choice and until the recent turn of public opinion couldn't defend themselves.

So why do you support a group that burns people at the stake? It doesn't matter how long ago it was, it is part of Christianity, You support it? want to bring it back?
If not then you should be quite happy to see an Evil Institution be purged from humanity so the real Truth can reign.
Or are you some hypocrite, quite Happy so get the benefits of the Science that Christians Burned men for? While Still Praising the Frauds, the murderers and rapists that tried to deny Humanity the Bounty of Science

Your ancestors probably approved of "witches" and heretics being burned at the stake.

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 23, 2019 3:03 pm

eddie wrote:Anything is up for mockery. That’s what free speech is all about.

You're free to mock religious people as long as you don't mind being mocked for being an airheaded moron. Yeah.

by eddie Sat Feb 23, 2019 4:12 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:Anything is up for mockery. That’s what free speech is all about.

You're free to mock religious people as long as you don't mind being mocked for being an airheaded moron. Yeah.

Yea if that’s what you think. But you don’t actually think that about me, do you?
But!
If you do think that, you really shouldn’t bother debating with me seeing as nothing I’ll say will be of any value anyway. Right?

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:00 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You're free to mock religious people as long as you don't mind being mocked for being an airheaded moron. Yeah.

Yea if that’s what you think. But you don’t actually think that about me, do you?
But!
If you do think that, you really shouldn’t bother debating with me seeing as nothing I’ll say will be of any value anyway. Right?

No, I don't think that of you. I mean if one wants to mock, one should be prepared to be mocked - not you personally. Surprised

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:02 pm

Also, if one mocks Islam, for example, one might find oneself looking down the barrel of a gun. It's then not much consolation for others to say it was freedom of speech.

by Guest Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:04 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Also, if one mocks Islam, for example, one might find oneself looking down the barrel of a gun. It's then not much consolation for others to say it was freedom of speech.

Defending islamic extremism through blasphemy. When you should be defending freedom of speech

What should have happened, with the violence around pictures of Muhammad, is that every media outlet should have posted them up. To show we will not bow down to terror

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:05 pm

Thor wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Also, if one mocks Islam, for example, one might find oneself looking down the barrel of a gun. It's then not much consolation for others to say it was freedom of speech.

Defending islamic extremism through blasphemy. When you should be defending freedom of speech

What should have happened, with the violence around pictures of Muhammad, is that every media outlet should have posted them up. To show we will not bow down to terror

Yes, well it wasn't you who got shot was it? It's not exactly brave of you to anonymously mock Islam.

by Guest Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:07 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thor wrote:

Defending islamic extremism through blasphemy. When you should be defending freedom of speech

What should have happened, with the violence around pictures of Muhammad, is that every media outlet should have posted them up. To show we will not bow down to terror

Yes, well it wasn't you who got shot was it? It's not exactly brave of you to anonymously mock Islam.

I will happily post them here if you like?

The people that posted them up, where not afraid of Islamic extremism, that were shot

So we see your true colours now defending Blasphemy laws

by Raggamuffin Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:11 pm

Thor wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, well it wasn't you who got shot was it? It's not exactly brave of you to anonymously mock Islam.

I will happily post them here if you like?

The people that posted them up, where not afraid of Islamic extremism, that were shot

So we see your true colours now defending Blasphemy laws

Using your real name and address? Go on then.

I can only speak for myself but I'd rather refrain from mocking Islam than get shot.

by Guest Sat Feb 23, 2019 5:13 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thor wrote:

I will happily post them here if you like?

The people that posted them up, where not afraid of Islamic extremism, that were shot

So we see your true colours now defending Blasphemy laws

Using your real name and address? Go on then.

I can only speak for myself but I'd rather refrain from mocking Islam than get shot.