Jackhammer Jesus dildo?

[Gecko4lif]

A Philistine wouldn't.

Neither would a realist.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Yeah, there are some things that are off limits, and other people's religion is one of them.

I would find a Buddha dildo or a Muhammad dildo or a Ganesh dildo equally offensive.

In deference to Gecko4lif I started another thread, this time one about blasphemous art, in order not to cause a threadjack. I'd like to have your opinion on it of you felt like contributing. :smile:

 

[B_Hickboy]

Neither would a realist.

Whoever said, "It takes all kinds" was not thinking about you when he said it.

 

[MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK]

What's really going on?

jackhammer jesus

Oh, wow. Bad. Real bad taste.

That is so insulting to a lot of people.

Dig it.

I would agree, just plain bad taste

Ditto.

Is it insulting to you Hickboy?

One would think so, yes.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

One would think so, yes.

Thanks an all, but Hickboy can and did speak for himself.

 

[B_Hickboy]

Thanks an all, but Hickboy can and did speak for himself.

Yes, but I don't know when to shut up. :biggrin1:

 

[StrictlyAvg]

Perhaps one in the image of Pan would be appropriate.

Yes the intent of the maker of this thing is clearly to offend/mock christian iconography in a crudely satirical way. Maybe the offence caused by the iconic representation would be something to examine. The way the jesus icon is depicted has after all been subject to quite a few changes over the centuries depending on the geographic location and imagination of many of the artists making the images. And there have been many interpretations by churches over the years about the acceptability of venerating statues and such other "solid" images.

 

[MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK]

Thanks an all, but Hickboy can and did speak for himself.

Was there any real reason for you to put it like that, or are you just coming down with a case of temporary insufferable prickbait syndrome?

Either rate, your response was uncalled for, since in my OP, I really didn't say anything insulting to you.

 

[Gillette]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, I'll ask how it is we've decided beyond a shadow of a doubt that the intent was to offend?

There are many religious people who will cherish anything that has symbol of their faith on it be that jewelry, license plates, bobble heads or a potato chip with what appears to be the Virgin Mary on it. Who is to say that they wouldn't enjoy this as well, and who is to say that they're wrong to do so?

I'm vaguely aware that there is a proscription about wasting one's seed in acts other than procreation but a woman can have as many orgasms as she likes without sacrificing a single egg. If a single woman doesn't wish to sin by having relations with a man outside of a holy union why couldn't she choose a symbol of her saviour to commune with? What about a bride of Christ?

Just because some symbols of devotion seem tacky or in poor taste to some does not inherently make them blasphemous. Furthermore, just because it offends you doesn't mean that it offends your god. Don't presume to speak for him.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

And hilaire didn't say anything insulting to you, either, Chuck. He had asked Hick a direct question and Hick had answered. When you answered for Hick all hilaire said was 'thanks...' and then pointed out the question was not directed at you and that the person it was directed at had already answered. The fact you take offence at that says a whole lot more aobut you than it does about hilaire.

 

[MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK]

Perhaps so there, MB.

 

[StrictlyAvg]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, I'll ask how it is we've decided beyond a shadow of a doubt that the intent was to offend?

There are many religious people who will cherish anything that has symbol of their faith on it be that jewelry, license plates, bobble heads or a potato chip with what appears to be the Virgin Mary on it. Who is to say that they wouldn't enjoy this as well, and who is to say that they're wrong to do so?

I'm vaguely aware that there is a proscription about wasting one's seed in acts other than procreation but a woman can have as many orgasms as she likes without sacrificing a single egg. If a single woman doesn't wish to sin by having relations with a man outside of a holy union why couldn't she choose a symbol of her saviour to commune with? What about a bride of Christ?

Just because some symbols of devotion seem tacky or in poor taste to some does not inherently make them blasphemous. Furthermore, just because it offends you doesn't mean that it offends your god. Don't presume to speak for him.

I don't think intent of the site makers to shock/offend with their range including "Diving Nun", "Virgin Mary", "Baby Jesus" butt plug, "God's Rod", "Buddha", the "Devil" and the "Grim Reaper" was ever particularly in any doubt.

How much ire it raises in you depends how much stall you set by pieces of silicone moulded into shapes, albeit shapes depicting icons that are part of the upbringing of a good percentage of the demographic of this site.

 

[CUBE]

but do they make it in chocolate?

 

[B_dxjnorto]

Jesus has a penis too.

 

[Gillette]

I don't think intent of the site makers to shock/offend with their range including "Diving Nun", "Virgin Mary", "Baby Jesus" butt plug, "God's Rod", "Buddha", the "Devil" and the "Grim Reaper" was ever particularly in any doubt.

As I imagine the primary objective is to make money through sales, something difficult to do if you only ever offend people.

Shock and amuse seems closer to their intent. If someone finds them useful, great, extra sale.

 

[JustAsking]

As I imagine the primary objective is to make money through sales, something difficult to do if you only ever offend people.

Shock and amuse seems closer to their intent. If someone finds them useful, great, extra sale.

I don't disagree with the opinion that these things were developed for commercial gain, and don''t really represent art. My concern is more about being wary of any laws that prohibit expression, but it religious or any other kind.

I do believe that within the framework of protected freedoms, one has to bear some kind of responsibiilty. So in some cases, I would not hesitate to tell someone that their actions or their free expression is harmful and despicable. I just don't want to see any laws against it, especially those what are designed to protect religious sensibilities.

Although I am a Christian, I make no claims about the rationality or irrationality about my beliefs such that they deserve some kind of special protection from the opinions and public expression of other citizens.

 

[StrictlyAvg]

As I imagine the primary objective is to make money through sales, something difficult to do if you only ever offend people.

Shock and amuse seems closer to their intent. If someone finds them useful, great, extra sale.

Yep, that I'll go along with.

I guess most people are never even gonna hear about these things so even though a sizeable number would be uncomfortable about it the net effect is going to be pretty small.

I can't even begin to imagine the look on the airport security or customs guy's face if he found one in your luggage...

 

[B_Hickboy]

Yep, that I'll go along with.

I guess most people are never even gonna hear about these things so even though a sizeable number would be uncomfortable about it the net effect is going to be pretty small.

I can't even begin to imagine the look on the airport security or customs guy's face if he found one in your luggage...

In a Muslim country, that could get you arrested. Depiction of any prophet is considered wrong under their system.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

In a Muslim country, that could get you arrested. Depiction of any prophet is considered wrong under their system.

I presume when you say "a Muslim country" you mean countries in which Sharia law is the basis of of the criminal code and constitution etc?

I mean you're right if that's what you're referring to.


Undoubtedly you are also correct that in some majority Muslim countries (where Sharia isn't the basis of the law) any image which would be considered disrespectful of the Prophet Mohamed would be illegal, this might apply to some of the other prophets of the Abrahamic tradition too, though I'm not sure there would be half as much controversy involved.

But by no means do all majority Muslim countries have laws directly banning such images, even if they would have laws against representations and images and material which might be liable to cause public outrage. Though mind you that's not exclusive to Muslim countries.

I suppose what I'm saying is that not all majority Muslim countries have the same kinds of law on these kinds of things, and its a bit simplistic to say "A Muslim country" and to say blasphemous images are "considered wrong under their system" without qualification of explanation of what you mean. :smile:

 

[ashlar]

Oh divine interventions, years later and still has people talking. I personally love it.