Quote:
Originally posted by Endymon32
Guthmund, this shows that it would not be offensive to mock Jews or muslims how?
|
I think I stated quite clear that it's only offensive to those that allow themselves to be offended. You claim to not be offended, yet I wonder....
Quote:
|
All this shows me is that Art Televison is only mocking those that are safe to mock. Why not slap an Amish man? They dont fight back either? If he wishes, I dont know if he even wishes this i am assuming, to be cutting edge and make comentary, which i assume he does, why not mock the NON safe groups?
|
Offend Muslims? Jews? Christians? Slap an Amish man? Who cares? I suspect that anyone, if they allowed, could offended by that image for many reasons if you were to look hard enough.
I have neither the inclination, nor have the ability to explain to the motives and meanings of ARTelevsion's image. Why did he pick a symbol of the Catholic church to combine with oral sex? I have not the foggiest clue. Why oral sex? Again, I have no idea. Why not mock the 'non-safe' groups? Only Art can shed the light on Art's intentions.
If this was the point of the argument, it would have been better to simply PM Art and ask him why he chose this subject matter above all others. The question was, however, if this image was offensive. I answered, but let me reiterate my particular stance.
It's only offensive if you allow it to be offensive. You asked if it would be offensive if he had used other religious symbols. I replied that there is only offense where offense is taken.
Quote:
|
I could show you an even longer list of Koranic Rules on how to treat the infidel, rules that are STILL to be obeyed, but that is not the point of this thread.
|
I'm guess I'm confused. Are they more deserving of mockey and ridicule because their list is longer.....? Isn't the word of God to still be obeyed? The point was to simply say that nutball ideas abound all over the world. It is our responsibility to be informed well enough to separate the chaff from the wheat.
I didn't say it was the point of the thread. The first part of my first reply was in answer to the "point of the thread" (Would this be offensive?) the second half concerned itself with the reply of
irseg.
Quote:
Originally posted by Rekna
Actually yes, the old testment is a description of a vengful God. But with the life and death of Jesus, God became forgiveful. Jesus died on the cross so that God would forgive our sins. That is why the new testiment holds more weight than old especially when talking about judgment.
|
You are implying that God changed? God's immutablity is a central tenet to Christian philosophy. There are scores of examples in the Old Testament, but here are some from the New....
These are from the New Testament
God is all knowing...
Quote:
Acts 15:18
Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
|
God is perfect...
Quote:
Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
|
God is unchanging...
Quote:
James 1:17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
|
God
cannot change. It's not that He hasn't the power. He has no reason to change for he is perfect already. So, if God is all knowing, perfect and unchanging, then the God of the New Testament is the same one of the Old. While the emphasis might not be in the New Testament, God is God.