Last Night Was Ridiculous

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Or if someone was burning a US flag...

Because Jesus and Mohamad bashing same thing

Flag is not a prophet

Weak

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Because Jesus and Mohamad bashing same thing

Flag is not a prophet

Weak

Ok try this then. What if muslims got together and burned the bible? Or if they decided to go say #### Jesus in front of a church with guns? What would the reaction be?

[Rob L 3,811]

how long you boys going to play hypotheticals?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

how long you boys going to play hypotheticals?

You jealous.

[yuna628 9,873]

Here's how I look at it: Traditionally 'Jesus' has been utilized importantly for Christianity by means of iconography. It rather runs contrary to early Christianity, and certainly very contrary to Judaism. Islam, in the more traditionalist style of ancient religions shares the tenants of a very important concept of a holiest of holy deity/prophets, so holy that depictions and such would be akin to idolatry (though if you look at some theologians take on the subject it's hard to find a consensus). Offensive both in the viewing and an affront in the making. You may often see this sort of tenant shared with even modern day Judaism in that the name of 'god' is so holy it cannot be spoken by the tongue of man. The Torah forbade idolatry especially, so concepts like this are strictly followed in types of Messianic Christianity and of course Amish for a more literal sense of idolatry. So how did depictions of Jesus feature so prominently in Christianity of the past, if it came out of a religion that forbade such images? As Christianity grew and conquered it became clear that those who were subjugated were used to having idols and images at their disposal. Believing without seeing is hard, isn't it? But it could also be especially hard to convey such messages to people who were not able to read or understand Latin (heading into the medieval period). Bibles had not yet been put into commonly used languages. Therefore, there is no more powerful a thing than an image to translate to the common people. This is of course was also how Jesus was changed completely into looking like something he was not. The artwork depiction of a god or 'Jesus' in that triune form doesn't offend modern day Christians, but I strongly suspect nearly every single prophet and disciple in the Bible, including 'Jesus' himself would have had a great problem with it being as they were first and foremost, Jewish and keeping Torah was critical.

Naturally in our modern day, where satire is prevalent as well as free speech, people may get offended with caricature depictions of a deity even more so than just a straight up depiction. But being offended, and making known such offense is also a part of free speech. I would actually point out there are numerous times where Christians become as equally offended as some Muslims may be in satirical depictions - whether it comes to the Pope or 'Jesus' on a regular basis and you can find these instances well-documented (in old days of Christianity punishment for such satirical depictions would have no literal difference than our modern-day terrorist angry about 'heretics' disrespecting them ironically). There are also other depictions where Christians, Jews, and Muslims each have aspects of their faith or deities satirized in xenophobic ways as well. Everyone should be rightly offended at these moments. Burn the holy books of all religions as some have; these are all painfully offensive things to those religious groups who hold these documents dear. But the average law-abiding citizen of all of these religious groups aren't raising a lynch mob as payback for doing so. They may let them know it's not cool, and the person doing it is a butt-head that's only doing it to get attention and raise their ego.. some may challenge it through legal methods, but that's about it. Of course if some don't understand that, and keep equating those who become so outraged they want to kill people for their artwork (nasty or nice) with the same people who don't... then they probably didn't finish reading what I just wasted my life to type.

[OriZ 3,165]

Wow, if you're an insomniac watch chelsea speak.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....sorry, fell asleep on the keyboard

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Wow, if you're an insomniac watch chelsea speak.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....sorry, fell asleep on the keyboard

Well, they all can't be proper thieves, I mean, speech writers and deliver such eloquent work like Mrs. Trump or that underwear model that just showcased pizazz!

[Rob L 3,811]

Here's how I look at it: Traditionally 'Jesus' has been utilized importantly for Christianity by means of iconography. It rather runs contrary to early Christianity, and certainly very contrary to Judaism. Islam, in the more traditionalist style of ancient religions shares the tenants of a very important concept of a holiest of holy deity/prophets, so holy that depictions and such would be akin to idolatry (though if you look at some theologians take on the subject it's hard to find a consensus). Offensive both in the viewing and an affront in the making. You may often see this sort of tenant shared with even modern day Judaism in that the name of 'god' is so holy it cannot be spoken by the tongue of man. The Torah forbade idolatry especially, so concepts like this are strictly followed in types of Messianic Christianity and of course Amish for a more literal sense of idolatry. So how did depictions of Jesus feature so prominently in Christianity of the past, if it came out of a religion that forbade such images? As Christianity grew and conquered it became clear that those who were subjugated were used to having idols and images at their disposal. Believing without seeing is hard, isn't it? But it could also be especially hard to convey such messages to people who were not able to read or understand Latin (heading into the medieval period). Bibles had not yet been put into commonly used languages. Therefore, there is no more powerful a thing than an image to translate to the common people. This is of course was also how Jesus was changed completely into looking like something he was not. The artwork depiction of a god or 'Jesus' in that triune form doesn't offend modern day Christians, but I strongly suspect nearly every single prophet and disciple in the Bible, including 'Jesus' himself would have had a great problem with it being as they were first and foremost, Jewish and keeping Torah was critical.

Naturally in our modern day, where satire is prevalent as well as free speech, people may get offended with caricature depictions of a deity even more so than just a straight up depiction. But being offended, and making known such offense is also a part of free speech. I would actually point out there are numerous times where Christians become as equally offended as some Muslims may be in satirical depictions - whether it comes to the Pope or 'Jesus' on a regular basis and you can find these instances well-documented (in old days of Christianity punishment for such satirical depictions would have no literal difference than our modern-day terrorist angry about 'heretics' disrespecting them ironically). There are also other depictions where Christians, Jews, and Muslims each have aspects of their faith or deities satirized in xenophobic ways as well. Everyone should be rightly offended at these moments. Burn the holy books of all religions as some have; these are all painfully offensive things to those religious groups who hold these documents dear. But the average law-abiding citizen of all of these religious groups aren't raising a lynch mob as payback for doing so. They may let them know it's not cool, and the person doing it is a butt-head that's only doing it to get attention and raise their ego.. some may challenge it through legal methods, but that's about it. Of course if some don't understand that, and keep equating those who become so outraged they want to kill people for their artwork (nasty or nice) with the same people who don't... then they probably didn't finish reading what I just wasted my life to type.

so is that yeah or nay on cheeto Jesus?

[yuna628 9,873]

so is that yeah or nay on cheeto Jesus?

I'm cool with Comrade Cheeto Jesus. ;-) But if someone wants to be offended by Comrade Cheeto Jesus they have the right to do so in this country within the rule of law.

Cheetos are great. Just not the Mac N' Cheetos. It's like fried soggy and gritty Easy Mac. It ain't good man.

Edited July 29, 2016 by yuna628

[eieio 1,594]

I'm cool with Comrade Cheeto Jesus. ;-) But if someone wants to be offended by Comrade Cheeto Jesus they have the right to do so in this country within the rule of law.

Cheetos are great. Just not the Mac N' Cheetos. It's like fried soggy and gritty Easy Mac. It ain't good man.

Mac n Cheetos will not be around long. Believe me.

I tried some a week or so ago....and they have distinct flavor. Not good.

[Rob L 3,811]

Mac n Cheetos will not be around long. Believe me.

I tried some a week or so ago....and they have distinct flavor. Not good.

Impeccable Trump rendition..Believing is everything

[Dashinka 25,891]

people can be offended. hopefully the us supports free speech and not just liberals.

Liberals supporting free speech?

http://reason.com/blog/2016/07/12/barbara-boxer-and-the-democratic-party-h

[smilesammich 10,727]

Liberals supporting free speech?

http://reason.com/blog/2016/07/12/barbara-boxer-and-the-democratic-party-h

there isn't much truth to anything asserted in that article, i read it it but the only thing i took away from it is the author hates liberals and wants to convince others to feel the same even if it means distorting reality. free speech and government funding for climate change, it's our responsibility to make sure the most productive groups get funded, not false fronts.

[Dashinka 25,891]

there isn't much truth to anything asserted in that article, i read it it but the only thing i took away from it is the author hates liberals and wants to convince others to feel the same even if it means distorting reality. free speech and government funding for climate change, it's our responsibility to make sure the most productive groups get funded, not false fronts.

So only the liberals get to decide which groups are most productive? I realize that liberals are omnipotent, but honestly I don't trust any group that is intolerant to opposition views.

[smilesammich 10,727]

So only the liberals get to decide which groups are most productive? I realize that liberals are omnipotent, but honestly I don't trust any group that is intolerant to opposition views.

i think you're letting the clear bias in the article dictate your analysis of what is actually occurring.