Active Now

Spunky
Slartibartfast
Discussion » Questions » Religion and Spirituality » Is the topic and imagery of Jesus Christ's crucifixion too graphic to discuss with children? Too graphic for main forums? Inappropriate?

Is the topic and imagery of Jesus Christ's crucifixion too graphic to discuss with children? Too graphic for main forums? Inappropriate?

Posted - July 16, 2019

Responses


  • 2836

    Let me preface this by saying that the entire Bible (as well as the Koran) is chockful of tales and imagery that are not appropriate for children...

    The movie, "The Passion Of The Christ" is itself a monumental achievement in film making at it's best. It is inspiration and gut wrenching, yet it received an "R" rating by the motion picture industry (STUPID CODE IF YOU ASK ME).



    I find it ironic that the morality code for motion pictures was originally part of the holy war on immorality and decency by the religious right resulting in the "Hayes Code" and subsequent MPAA rating system. The irony is that a film that accurately depicts the life and death of Jesus Christ is banned from viewing by the young faithful and difficult for them to see not to mention the various other legal issues surrounding  an "R" rating. 

    This is a very timely topic.  Recently, I was given a 48 hour suspension and had a painting by a famous classical artist, Hieronymus Bosh (which had been commissioned  by the Christian church) censored and removed  because it has imagery to sensitive for younger viewers.  As justification for my suspension and the removal of said art work, the following was provided:



    "I consulted an art professor who opposes censorship and appreciates the type of art Bosch creates. In short, he believes enforcing decency guidelines is not a form of censorship and was shocked that anyone who viewed Bosch’s works, let alone understood them, would believe it was appropriate to share them with a general audience."

    Aside from the glaring BS in those sentences ( specifically glaring contradictions that a "Professor" who opposes censorship approves of censorship) the statement should speak for ALL imagery , not just that which admin take offense to. Play fare people!

    So in this case, ALL imagery of Christ being crucified should be removed from the main forum and only be allowed in "Free For All" or "Adult Mug" because it is not approrpiate for younger viewers and certainly does not pass the "PG-13" muster.

    (sidenote: If a kid can yuse a PC, Laptop, Phone, navigate a keyboar, mouse and the internet, they sure AF know how to look up "Porn". No one is gonna get "sued" because a kid saw the brown-word.)

    As for the Bible..I do NOT want to see passages or Scripture on open forum from a book that  promotes bestiality so all members should refrain from posting on open forum anything from that book :  

    Ezekiel 23:20 20There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

    In other words, we have a book which (amongst other things) talks about whores who like her tricks to have "big dicks" but people like me, who post a picture of an image of a 15th classical piece of art get penalized, moderated, and chastised.





    Christ goes or Hypocrisy goes


    This post was edited by Jon at July 16, 2019 12:45 PM MDT
      July 16, 2019 10:52 AM MDT
    5

  • Between twisted political correctness infecting most public discourse and the arbitrary, narrow-minded, biased, and frankly stupid censorship carried on by this site's moderators - Jesus, Bosch, Buddha, and most of the 20th century don't stand a chance here. 
      July 16, 2019 11:08 AM MDT
    3

  • 2836
      July 16, 2019 11:11 AM MDT
    2

  • 5391
    It is an extremely poor analogy to lump Christ with Buddha. There is remarkably little they have in common. 
      July 16, 2019 5:23 PM MDT
    0

  • Many philosophers and theologians believe they have a lot in common Don. In fact the Dalai Lama has said so over and over :



    So maybe you'd like to explain why you think its so inappropriate? This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at July 17, 2019 1:57 PM MDT
      July 17, 2019 12:29 AM MDT
    1

  • 5391
    I heartily disagree with them. Theologians tend more toward being apologists and rationalizing their own beliefs than factual assertions, as such I generally regard them as suspect sources. The Dalai Lama, in his wisdom, was no doubt seeking to highlight the common ground of diverse beliefs. Nothing wrong with that. Noble effort by His Holiness.

    The two philosophies may indeed converge at some points, but since the Buddha predated Christ by about 500 years, I posit that such convergences are more likely plagiarisms of Buddhist (and other) tenets than original Judeo-Christian ideals. We can’t discount some are just well-worn common sense found in many places. 

    That said, their biographies are not at all similar, Buddhism is not even a theism. Siddhartha Gautama did not perform alleged “miracles”, did not hold himself up as divine, did not preach hell, prayer, prophesy or submission to any deity. I bid you show any Buddhist analogy as inappropriate for children’s ears as those found in the NT Gospels. This post was edited by Don Barzini at July 17, 2019 1:57 PM MDT
      July 17, 2019 3:52 AM MDT
    1

  • Really? 

    So you reject any notion that Jesus and Buddha shared a common enlightenment, because you believe only Christians believe in hell?

    Okay fine. But read this ;

    From the Majjima Nikaya

    Devaduta Sutta 130

    "Then the king of the under world would ask him. `Good man didn't 
    you see among humans offender taken hold by the king and given various kinds 
    of torture caned and wipped, flogged with the jungle rope, flogged with the 
    soiled stick, hands severed, legs severed, or both hands and legs severed, ears 
    and nose severed, put in the boiling gruel pot, shell tonsured, put in Ràhu's 
    mouth, garlanded with the blazing garland, hands scorched, the bark dress given, 
    put with snakes, put hooks in the flesh, cut pieces of flesh from the body, drive 
    a spike from ear to ear, beat to make the body like straw, immerse in the 
    boiling oil, give to the dogs to be eaten, raise on a spike alive until death, 
    and cut the neck with the sword?'. Then he says, `Sir, I saw. `The king of the 
    under world asks him. `Goodman, being a wise aged one, didn't it occur to you, 
    the results for evil actions are here and now there is no other alternative. "

    No matter what we believe, Hell is always what we make it. But you sort of missed the point Don. I was talking more about censorship than scripture. 

    But I hope I got your attention.
      July 17, 2019 7:58 AM MDT
    1

  • 5391
    Really.
    I reject the assertion that Jesus shared the Buddha’s enlightenment because Jesus as portrayed in the gospels is so clearly a fictional construct, an accretion of primitive ideals crafted to purpose of mass manipulation, not a credible biography of a real person.
    I am addressing overstating your censorship argument, which otherwise was pretty solid. 

    That said, I know for a fact Christians aren’t the only ones who believe in hell, but it is notable that it took the NT Jesus to introduce hell as a concept (lake of fire, eternal suffering, blah, blah) into the belief lexicon, as a direct and fearful threat for noncompliance, not as pointed allegory as are the commentaries of the Majjhima Nikaya

    I do agree Hell is truly what we make it, and how could it be otherwise, since it is also an imaginary construct. 

    You got my attention, but you would have more quickly gained my respect with a user name not drawn from the same well as Spongebob Squarepants. Lol This post was edited by Don Barzini at July 17, 2019 12:55 PM MDT
      July 17, 2019 11:59 AM MDT
    0

  • I get that you're an atheist Don, and just seeing a reference to Jesus pushes your big button.

    But it really doesn't matter to me when I'm trying to talk about censorship and all you want to do is argue religion. That's not a difference in belief its just miscommunication.
      July 17, 2019 12:45 PM MDT
    0

  • 4624
    I find it refreshing - an incredible relief - to hear people talk perfect sense in this way.
    I wish your post could go viral and start worldwide conversations on radio, T.V., in the newspapers and on Facebook.
    Good for you, Goatey!
      July 16, 2019 12:17 PM MDT
    2

  • 2836
    lol...

    Thank you so much for those words, Bookworm.

    I want to say this.  When TD and I talk, I often tell him that I am somewhat intimidated at times when I see the artistry that you and he both exibit when you lay before us the tapestries of of your thoughts woven through words (and in TD's case..His $10 words which are much better than my thrift store babblings. LOL).
    I'm just a humble fool. I'm not always that eloquent, elogant, or correct, that is for sure.

    We have often spoke of creating a Podcast with nothing but meanignless rants and chatter. Perhaps we could do this on YouTube. We could do special call in guests. That would be so much fun! Would you like to make an appearance? That would be great! lol This post was edited by Jon at July 16, 2019 12:57 PM MDT
      July 16, 2019 12:39 PM MDT
    1

  •   July 16, 2019 12:59 PM MDT
    1

  • 2836
    LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! 

    OUR OFFICIAL MASCOT!

    IT'S PAT!!!
      July 16, 2019 1:00 PM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    There is a series on Amazon TV called Bosch.

    Titus Welliver as Los Angeles Police Department Detective III Hieronymus 'Harry' Bosch, a former Army Special Forces operative and a veteran of the first Gulf War and Afghanistan who works as a homicide detective in the Hollywood Division. Something of a renegade, Harry is an astute detective with a fundamental respect for rules and policy. Harry lives in a cantilevered house high up in the Hollywood Hills, purchased with money he earned as a technical advisor on a film.

    I always wondered where his name came from.
      July 16, 2019 12:59 PM MDT
    3

  • 2836
    I forgot about that show. 
    That is indeed the main character's name on it. lol This post was edited by Jon at July 16, 2019 5:17 PM MDT
      July 16, 2019 1:01 PM MDT
    2

  • 34272
    Any picture depicting rape of anyone will be deleted regardless of whom the artist. It is a violation of TOS rules #2 and #3. 

    2. All of the main areas must be kept clean. Think of it as a PG-13 rating or less. This includes EVERYWHERE (including your personal profile, profile photo, other photos, videos, blogs, and posts), except for designated “adult groups” that are made available to adult Muggers who opt to join our adult network. We do not allow cursing or sexual content anywhere other than in these select groups.


    3. Anything that’s illegal in Arizona, USA, is not permitted here at all, ever, under any circumstances. This includes things like bestiality, murder, rape, violence, incest, hate speech, and attacks of protected classes (race, religion, gender, etc.), but this list is not exhaustive.

      July 16, 2019 2:56 PM MDT
    1

  • 2836
    Then I can safely assume that the Bible and it's Imagery will no longer be allowed in the main forum since it contains:

    • Incest
    • Rape
    • Murder
    • Bestiality 
    • Cursing
    • Sexual Content
    • Hate Speech 
    • other things illegal in the state of ARIZONA

     
      July 16, 2019 3:09 PM MDT
    3


  • I generally try to refrain from being too controversial, however we all know what they say about the "best laid plans".  Somehow from time to time I still manage to "step in it" so to speak.  I would imagine most everyone here knows that I profess to be a Christian, I believe in God, and as such take the Holy Bible as his word.  I would be very disheartened to see any and all references to Christian scripture stricken from the public forum and too any invocation of other religious texts. Here comes the but though and it is a very big BUT.  The Goat makes a very sound point.  The Bible and many other works, even children's fairy tales, regale us of stories that upon deeper analysis would make any "enlightened" individual recoil in horror.  And I dare say that much of it is illegal in Arizona.  But are we also going to forbid Classic Fairy tales?  Where does all this overabundance of bovine feces end?  I believe that it is incumbent upon administration as well as those who moderate to make a concerted effort to use good sense and strike a balance just as they ask we members to do.  We can not exist in echo chambers where all we ever see and here is that which we ourselves enjoy regurgitating.  Sometimes to learn and grow, we must step out of our comfort zones and while pulling up our big boy and big girl panties become part of the greater community at large so as to learn from each other.  I don't believe that anyone here has any interest in viewing an actual rape or some graphic facsimile thereof.  I also feel certain that these same people are able to understand and appreciate classic art, mythological stories, as well as music or cinema with erotic undertones.  According to the current inane rules I would assume that even Michelangelo's David is in violation of TOS and I personally find THAT offensive and absurd. 




    It is my understanding that in Arizona as well as the country at large, kidnapping is a crime.  By the standard in which we operate here this beautiful work of art by William Adolphe Bouguereau would also be against TOS, which I find very rich indeed considering that I can see this classic depiction called "The Abduction Of Psyche" in the fine print and craft sections of almost any store.  From art stores to Hobby Lobby.  From Walmart to Big/Odd Lots.  From Kohl's to Target.  On and On.

     


    So all I am suggesting is that we stop the hypocrisy and cease with the uber-conservatism which is far too reactionary in its thoughts and deeds, borne out of fear of everything, and deeply inhale a comforting breath of freedom and the fresh air of open-mindedness, refusing the stifling stale odor of over-censorship. 



    This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at July 16, 2019 5:19 PM MDT
      July 16, 2019 4:10 PM MDT
    2

  • 2836
    Woo Hoo! Look at you go, Jesus Boy!

    Thank you for your well thought out response
      July 16, 2019 4:23 PM MDT
    1


  • WOW!  Watch that pickle wiggle!


      July 16, 2019 4:43 PM MDT
    1

  • I keep seeing you and JA lecturing members with this baloney as though it was all clear as day. It's not. In fact I doubt that either of you really understand or care why many of us continue to question these rules, and how you apply them.

    -  "Think of it as a PG-13 rating or less. This includes EVERYWHERE (including your personal profile, profile photo, other photos, videos, blogs, and posts), "

    Really?? Then what about this from your from your TOS summary: "This Network is not directed to anyone younger than 14 and is offered only to users 14 years of age or older. Any person who provides their personal information through this Network represents that they are 14 years of age or older."

    - Do any of you actually know what a PG 13 rating means? I think someone should before using it to beat up members you think are being naughty. According to the Motion Picture Association of America, which developed the rating system, 
    " A PG-13 motion picture may go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements, but does not reach the restricted R category. The theme of the motion picture by itself will not result in a rating greater than PG-13, although depictions of activities related to a mature theme may result in a restricted rating for the motion picture. Any drug use will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented. There may be depictions of violence in a PG-13 movie, but generally not both realistic and extreme or persistent violence. motion picture’s single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context."

    In other words strong language, brief nudity, realistic violence, and other adulut content aren't prohibited - They're allowed with a caution to those age 13 or younger. And according to your own rules no one younger than 14 should even be here. 

    So what's up ? What are you really doing, and who are you doing it for?
    This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at July 16, 2019 5:48 PM MDT
      July 16, 2019 4:20 PM MDT
    1

  • 7939

    It might be easier if I break this up into short points. If any seem confusing or you want clarification, let me know.

    This site was originally 100% clean and only allowed members 18 and up. Our members were accustomed to this and expected it to stay that way. However, we grew, and I knew some people needed an outlet for more colorful discussions. This in mind, adultMug and Free-for-All were created. It seemed like a win-win. People gained the opportunity to engage in discussions that others might deem inappropriate- they just needed to put those discussions in the right place. 

    Like most sites, we have a very lengthy TOS. I’ve tried to simplify it by providing bullet points in the intro. I use the PG-13 guidelines as an example because most people know what that means. However, I could also say something like “talk how you would talk at work” or “talk like you would talk to your grandmother” and most people would come to the same conclusion about the type of environment we’re trying to create. If these examples don’t make it easier for you (or anyone else here) to identify if what they’re posting is ok, then it’s better to examine the TOS as a whole- not just the simplified versions of it.

    I believe that most people are capable of moderating themselves and don’t need me to do it for them. So, when something is posted in the wrong section, I treat it as a no-harm/ no-foul deal. I send them a note telling them why something was removed, so they can avoid removals in the future. It is not intended to punish, beat people up, or anything of that nature. Quite the opposite. You get those letters so you can take an active role- because I believe you’re capable. 

      July 16, 2019 11:30 PM MDT
    1

  • 5391
    Sorry, but there is absolutely no proof that this movie, or the New Testament for that matter, is a factual account of Jesus‘ life. None. Zip. Nada.
    It is merely an interpretation of NT gospels, done for profit and Mel Gibson’s ego.
    A study of history (and mythology) will reveal some two dozen other, earlier characters who were attributed the same themes and characteristics as Jesus. His tale is neither unique nor original. 

    ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’ [correction: The Passion of the Christ] is a graphically violent, gore-soaked snuff film, easily fitting the criteria of an R-rating. The fact that it is based on Christian scripture is less an indictment of the movie rating system than of the deranged mythology of Christianity and the minds that ply it. 

    I hold that NONE of this malarkey should be involuntarily imposed on the impressionable minds of children. Ever. This post was edited by Don Barzini at July 16, 2019 6:28 PM MDT
      July 16, 2019 5:00 PM MDT
    1

  • 2836
     If Jesus was indeed scourged at the pillar and he was crucified, nailed to a cross, then yes....it was bloody and I may add that it may have been more bloody than depicted in the film, "The Passion of the Christ". 

    There were two films and you mention "The Last Temptation of Christ" which was directed by Martin Scorcese and your description more accurately describes "the Passion of The Christ which was directed by Mel Gibson .  IMHO the last Temptation of Christ is a much better picture,  much less graphic, and yet scorned by extremist Christians sight unseen. 

    "The Passion" is a blood drenched epic of depicting the the pain and torture of Christ's last moments.

    "I hold that NONE of this malarkey should be involuntarily imposed on the impressionable minds of children." 

    Thank you Don, You are making my point and it is much appreciated.  


      July 16, 2019 5:57 PM MDT
    1