Sacrilegious or not?

[Miles]

.


[center][/center]


Well?

If so, why?

If not, is it tasteless?

If neither sacrilegious nor tasteless what do you think of it?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Crude, insensitive, valueless ... as with the thread.

In other words, you'd rather that everyone restrict their topics to warm, cuddly fireplace issues, cute kitty pictures, and those in which everyone can agree with a smile. Gotcha!

Actually, you don't.

[T-mash]

I view it more as flamebait.

The most popular motive is the desire for attention and the entertainment that is derived at the expense of others. Posted flamebait can provide the posting party with a controlled trigger-and-response setting in which to engage in conflicts and indulge aggressive behavior anonymously, without facing the consequences those behaviors may bring to bear in a face to face encounter. In other instances, flamebait may be used to reduce a forum's use by angering forum users.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/flamebait

Is this particular image flame bait? It could be very well used as an image about 'Why all children should be considered a blessing'. You could point out 'Even the baby Jesus was brought up by a man who was not his father'. and show that all children are a blessing. It's a matter of perspective.

It's a matter of intent, and the intent seems clearly to mock and trivialize. Much depends on where it was originally published.

Which is an awesome intent. If you can't ridicule or mock something that holds as much power as Christianity then something is clearly wrong in our modern free-spoken society. Mockery is necessary for a reality check. The difference between dictatorship and regular leadership is that the latter can still be made fun off without consequences (within limits). Having a good sense of humour isn't only about being able to make a joke, but also about being able to take a joke.

PS. The picture is true, Joseph is not the father.

[myth-one.com]

No Christian ever said that Joseph WAS Jesus's father. It's hard to see how this could be considered sacrilegious by anyone, except those who think that religious subjects are never appropriately connected with humor.

I agree. Why is it not vindication?

[Miles]

Crude, insensitive, valueless ... as with the thread.

In other words, you'd rather that everyone restrict their topics to warm, cuddly fireplace issues, cute kitty pictures, and those in which everyone can agree with a smile. Gotcha!

Actually, you don't.

"Gotcha" in the sense of, "I understand."

[Miles]

In post #10 cnorman18 said, "I think the picture has more to do with making fun of Maury Povich than with making fun of Jesus," and this got me thinking about it in that respect. Never having watched more than a few minutes of the guy from time to time, I looked him up on Wikipedia, which among other things said:

• "Despite the seemingly compassionate attitude of Maury Povich toward his guests, The Maury Show is often accused by critics of exploiting dysfunctional families, minorities, and the poor, and for embracing and sensationalizing some of the worst stereotypes of American society and behavior."
  source

In light of this I have come to agree with cnorman18, and feel the picture was a poke at Povich and his tactics rather than any comment on its religious aspects. And, I think it's a great poke.

[cnorman18]

In post #10 cnorman18 said, "I think the picture has more to do with making fun of Maury Povich than with making fun of Jesus," and this got me thinking about it in that respect. Never having watched more than a few minutes of the guy from time to time, I looked him up on Wikipedia, which among other things said:

• "Despite the seemingly compassionate attitude of Maury Povich toward his guests, The Maury Show is often accused by critics of exploiting dysfunctional families, minorities, and the poor, and for embracing and sensationalizing some of the worst stereotypes of American society and behavior."
  source

In light of this I have come to agree with cnorman18, and feel the picture was a poke at Povich and his tactics rather than any comment on its religious aspects. And, I think it's a great poke.

I don't watch the show either, but every time I flip past it when channel-surfing, it seems that all he does now is paternity testing.

Povich is just Jerry Springer lite. Both enrich themselves by exploiting the car-wreck fascination we have with watching people tear each other apart without restraint.

It's not trivial; adults are amused by such antics, but children imitate them. I taught middle school in the inner city; every one of my kids watched Springer faithfully and behaved accordingly. Someone says something you don't like - you're supposed to just go after them physically, right then, no matter what else is going on. And the other kids cheer you on. My classes were interrupted by this crap every day. Math and science and history and reading they were reluctant to learn; my reading group was made up of sicth-graders whe could not read at a second-grade level. But low-class behavior they studied carefully and worked at.

If anyone is looking for the sources of the coarsening of society and the extinction of manners and civility, shows like those are prominent among them.

[Sir Rhetor]

According to the Bible, this image is not actually lying. Joseph was not actually the biological father, according to the Bible. So in a sense, Christians have to agree. I know I'm walking a fine line here, so I have to clarify. Because Jesus' father was, according to the Bible, God, we should assume that Maury would actually not be lying.

Whether it is used for flame bait or not, given the previous paragraph, the image does have a piece of truth to it. It is not a lie, and it really isn't making a point, either. This is why I see it as clean humor. Now, to whether it is offensive, that is a different story. People get offended if they aren't allowed to put the Ten Commandments up in public locations. No, that is not a right. Don't cite religious freedom for that either, because there's a lot of stuff you cannot do, whether it is for religious reasons or not (human sacrifice, for example).

The definition of flame bait I used focuses solely on intent. There is content which is appropriate in some contexts, but not in others ("there's a time and a place for everything, and it's called college"). I could start a flame war on another super-religious forum where practically everyone thinks evolution is evil and racist (no, really, someone posted that somewhere else on the internet).

So now we have the bomb in the plane. You choose what it is filled with by where you drop it. I submit that it is likely filled with laughing gas.