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.

[VermilionUK]

It's humour, nothing more. People are too sensitive in today's world - remember that cartoon of Mohammad? Yes, it did perhaps cross the line (depending on where you choose to draw that line), but it didn't warrant the violent outbursts that we saw.

People need to realise the difference between dark humour and intentional insulting. Personally, I think it's healthy to be able to mock things - it brings some relief from the day to day misery of life...

[otseng]

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

[VermilionUK]

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

I suppose it depends how the images are used. If they were used in a thread called "why christians are stupid" then yes, it's definately flamebait. However, at my college people sent these sorts of images around the college email network frequently - purely for humour.

I'd say that for the Average Joe, a picture like that is something that will make someone chuckle to themselves - although like I said, it depends on the context within which it's being used.

[Goat]

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 could be used to upset Christians, it could be used as a point against abortion, or to point out that children are not responsible for the circumstances of their birth, and each one should be equally cared for a loved, no matter what.

It all depends on how negative or positive a spin you want to put on this image.

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

[Goat]

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.

Where was it originally published, and who did it. What was the person who initially made it intent? Do you know? I do not. That is an assumption that I can not make given the context of the post. I am not a mind reader, nor did I see the picture in it's original context.

Nor, does it matter what the original intent was. It is the context in which it is being used it the point. Everything is a matter of context. Of course, some people will always seek the negative, and some people will always seek the positive. Some people look for reasons to get upset, and therefore are always getting upset.

[Miles]

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

Hmmm. 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!

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

Interesting that you can derive apparent intent from the words:

• "Sacrilegious or not?
  
  Well?
  
  If so, why?
  
  If not, is it tasteless?
  
  If neither sacrilegious nor tasteless what do you think of it?"

Ever think of joining the FBI, I'm sure they'd be interested in someone who can divine the intent of others from so few cryptic questions. (actually, I think a bit of prejudice may have crept into your thinking here. Possible?)

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.

I'm surprised that someone of your position as administrator would do what I and countless others have been told not to do: go off issue and focus on the poster. But whatever.

As for my motive being one of flamebaiting, not at all. No one's expense is being taken here. And how would I derive some kind control over the discussion with aggression, as your definition of flamebait suggests? As for being able to "reduce a forum's use by angering forum users" I would have to be a genius. The forum has far too many astute participants to let me or anyone else do such a thing.

As for my actual motive; I came across the picture in a non-religious context, and it struck me that while it stated a basic truth of the story, it did so in a way that could be taken either humorously, as one poster here has, or as sacrilegious, as others seem to have. But because it appeared to be such a borderline issue, I was curious as to how the religious and non-religious here would view it. And it's as simple as that. No ulterior motive in trying to "indulge [myself in non-consequential] aggressive behavior," or to "reduce a forum's use by angering forum users."

I always look for discussions in which opposing views are expressed. Who wants to go to a discussion forum where everyone is going, "I agree." "I agree." "I agree." "I agree." "I agree." "I agree." "I agree." "I agree." "I agree." "I agree." "I agree." "I agree." "I agree." "I agree." "I agree." "I agree" ?

[cnorman18]

I think the picture has more to do with making fun of Maury Povich than with making fun of Jesus.

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.