Is this image offensive?

[BurtWorm]

[Taverner]

1. Not to me, but it is a non-sequitor

[Qutzupalotl]

2. Yeah, pretty much.

[BurtWorm]

4. Can you say why?

I'm a straight male atheist and I thought it was actually kind of a beautiful image.

[Qutzupalotl]

6. The painting itself is not so bad,

but taken with the headline, it comes off as a smear -- especially when you see the source.

Believe or don't believe, but not many people would say that Jesus' life was worthy of a smear.

[Evoman]

11. I might consider it offensive, but not because it's a smear.

Being homosexual isn't a smear.

If anything, it's offensive because there is no rational reason to say that Jesus was gay (and only a little more for his actual existence). In effect, I think its a visual version of calling something "gay"...I'm offended that somebody would actually try to use homosexuality to offend someone else, rather than at the idea jesus might have been gay.

If your an atheist, why would you fucking care if Jesus was gay or not. I sure as hell don't.

If it's meant as satire, to bring out the bigotry among christians, then okay I can see a purpose. But right now, without an explanation from the group, I'm not seeing it like that.

[BurtWorm]

12. I think it's meant to provoke thought.

Or maybe just to provoke reaction. I think it's an interesting line of thought, regardless of whether you believe there was a Jesus or not. (For the record, I think Jesus is purely mythical.) It raises questions about what it would mean if there really were a Jesus who was (at least) part human. What does being human entail? Doesn't it entail attachments of various kinds--familial, social, romantic.

But it also provokes thoughts along the lines of what is sacred? Can eros be sacred? Can homoeros be?

Lots of interesting questions.

[Evoman]

14. For some reason, Burtworm, I don't think the people who put that up were thinking that deeply.

I think it was to provoke reaction.

I could be wrong, though, since I don't know anything about this group.

[BurtWorm]

16. You're probably right. But...

it had the effect of provoking thought in me, anyway.

:woohoo:

[Qutzupalotl]

13. Being Muslim isn't a smear either,

but in a political context, calling Obama a Muslim is damaging. The intent in both cases is to raise questions and/or cause damage, so it has the same effect as a smear. So perhaps "smear" was the wrong word for me to use. How about "attack"?

If you're an atheist, you're already on board with the group's goals, so that's not who they're talking to. As outreach for an atheist group, I think it's unsuccessful. It will not gain converts, only solidify resentment.

[Evoman]

15. "you're already on board with the group's goals"

Since I don't know what the groups goals are, that is premature. Just because two groups are christians, it doesn't mean they have the same goals.

As an outreach....yeah, sorely lacking.

[Dorian Gray]

18. I'm glad you said that,

Evoman.

That's what I was thinking about it, but not being an atheist, I didn't know if my thoughts would be reflective of an atheist's thought on using that image of JC in such a way. If you don't believe in Him, as atheists don't, then the sole purpose of it is to offend those that do, which assumes that using a homosexual image will offend. It just seems sort of weird.

[moggie]

21. Here's what the atheist group in question said

"The purpose of the poster is to get students to see something they haven't seen before," he said. "The chances are it challenges them to challenge something they thought they knew." Sure, the poster was attention-seeking, but ultimately Weaver said he just wanted to create enough buzz to get people debating and thinking about why they believe what they believe.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/08/the_latest_student_outrage.php

(I wanted to link to the original newspaper article, but that link isn't working for me).

The reactions it'll get will vary, of course. Gay Christians will presumably not be bothered. Neither will many straight liberal Christians. Homophobes will, of course, but surely challenging homophobia is a good thing? And some fraction of the Christians who see the poster will give it some serious thought, rather than just shrugging it off. It could lead to some interesting discussions. If Jesus was gay, does that affect how believers view his teachings? What was life like for homosexuals in that time and place? Was there evidence of his sexuality, which the early church covered up? If he had no sexual desire, how could he fully relate to humans? etc etc. Such questioning won't necessarily lead to atheism, but encouraging a more thoughtful, questioning Christianity in place of dogma is no bad thing.

As for whether it's a meaningless question for atheists: although we don't believe he was the son of god, the question of whether he was a genuine historical figure isn't settled. He wasn't divine, but he may have been fabulous.

[Ian David]

22. We know Jesus was a real person, because so many stories have been written about him.

That is also how we know Captain Kirk, Winnie the Pooh, and Sherlock Holmes are real.

[Evoman]

28. Unfortunately, human beings are....well.... humans.

And react with emotion, rarely thinking about why they have those emotions or trying to understand the message. On DU we have the most liberal of posters, and even they really don't like that poster.

I wanna be clear here....I really don't care about this. At all. My concerns are simply sympathetic to gay people who might be offended. What Jesus is and what he may have been like concerns me little.

[elshiva]

44. I agree with you, Evoman.

It's almost like they are saying "homosexual" like that's a bad thing and why would anyone dare think a homosexual could be the "Son of God."

It seems designed to bring out a lot of homophobia as well a "atheistphobia" among Christians.

Also, yes, what are they basing their evidence on? All "evidence" of Jesus is basically in the New Testament and there is not clue in there that he was gay. Not that being gay is bad, isn't not, there's just nothing to go on...


buffy

[Realityhack]

45. I concur. That was very well put. n/t

[Ian David]

3. Yes, because it makes it appear Jesus was white.

See:

Yeshua of Nazareth:
What did he look like?

Which image looks more like Jesus?


More:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcfa.htm



See also:

Was Jesus Gay?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=175583&mesg_id=175583

[tazkcmo]

5. not as offensive

as any pic of Bush, McCain, et al

[cosmik debris]

7. Very very very slightly offensive

because it pretends that Jesus was real.

[BurtWorm]

10. I see your point.

;)

[Ian David]

23. If Jesus wasn't real, then whose body did the Chinese steal to make penis pills out of? n/t

[On the Road]

8. The Carpocratians Apparently Believed That

and most mainstream believers found it highly offensive. Of course, that was the second century.

I doubt Jesus was gay. I don't think the author has any basis to know one way or another -- he or she is just trying to get attention and challenge widely held beliefs.

[Ian David]

24. If we find The Holy Grail...

... and it has a label saying Jesus bought it during The Folsom Street Festival, then we'll know.

[jbane]

9. Yes it is.

[Sanctified]

17. LOL, Just LOL. Atheist stating Jesus was gay that is almost too much.

The image is absurd and it's only intention is to get attention. What really tops off the image is the use of a gmail account, lol.

[Ian David]

25. Atheists don't believe in god. Doesn't mean they don't believe in a historical person named Jesus.nt

[northernsoul]

19. Of all the arguments to make against Christianity

That idea that its putative founder may have been gay isn't one of them. Considering the great thinkers who had same-sex relationships, I say it puts him in good company.

[Ian David]

26. I don't think they're making the case that Jesus being gay is an argument against chrisTianity. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

20. More absurd than anything else.

[JoshC]

27. No..

I'm an atheist. Why would a fictional character in a fictional relationship be offensive? :)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. The question was "is it offensive", not "does it offend you"?

You appear to be answering the latter of those.

[Igel]

38. Can't agree.

"Is it offensive?" is missing a logical argument: To whom?

"It's red" can be answered by a machine: Does the object reflect the right wave lengths of light, by a consensus agreement on the range accepted for "red" by most English speakers? "It's made of perskovite" is a readily agreed upon conclusion if we know what "perskovite" is. There are times when we dispute evidence; but if we can agree on a definition that can be applied, we're most of the way there, and a relative moron can reach the same conclusion as a genius.

But "offenses" have to have some sort of dative object, somebody doing the perceiving and evaluating and emoting, in the absence of a consensus definition. There is none. "Offensive" is always predicated of some person or group of people.

Look at it this way: verbs and adjectives have arguments. PUT(person, object, place). I'll use * to show that an argument is optionally expressed. "I put the jar on the shelf" is well formed. "I put the jar" is not, at least not unless we're doing track and field. "I put on the shelf" isn't well formed, either. LIFT(person, object, *goal) is different. "I lifted the crate onto the cart" is fine. "I lifted the crate is fine"; they mean slightly different things, and the latter sentence is still a bit semantically incomplete, because lifting involves motion, and that implies a goal to the motion--it's just defocused, de-emphasized, and either unimportant to the speaker or the speaker assumes that the missing info can be filled in effortlessly by the listener. It's the same for adjectives. RED(subject). "The coffee can is red." One-place predicates are seldom left without a subject (but see Russian, where it's possible).

OFFENSIVE(*perceiver, source) is what we need. We can say that "Maplethorpe is offensive", but we've left out something that doesn't need to be expressed to be understood. The perceiver. When I say, "That's just offensive", there's a clear perceiver: You get it from context. If you didn't, the semantics would crash, just as saying, "Hey, put the cat" or "John put on the shelf" crash.

So the person you're responding to could reply, "Yes, it's offensive to X", if he really knew X well enough. But s/he could not reply in a general, person-independent way. Few things are offensive to all people; it's hard to know if "offended" is possible for most, or even any, animals (human perceptions of animal behavior notwithstanding).

The easiest answer is to give for, "Is it offensive to me?" since I know my own standards and since most of my communication involves me in some way--I'm an argument of the predicate (the attribute is mine, attributed to someone by me; I'm the agent of the action or activity, or the object, the recipient, or a perceiver).

[Donald Ian Rankin]

39. "Is it offensive?" means "will it offend a significant number of people", not "does it offend you".

It's a request to predict how many people it will offend and how much, not a question about your personal response.

It's generally fairly easy to make such predictions - this image, for example, will offend more than half of the world's population. You don't need to know people personally to know that.

[ZombieHorde]

29. There is an article on the subject of his sexuality at the link below.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jegay.htm

It discusses his possible relations with Mary Magdalen and the disciple John. The article uses biblical references for discussing several sides of the argument.

Congratulations, you have found the hidden text!

[dsc]

30. Honestly yes it is

for the same reason the Rush is gay threads are. Clearly these people feel calling Jesus gay is an insult which means, that for them, it is insulting.

[ZombieHorde]

42. Some people believe that Jesus was gay because of certian bible quotes...

"In the Gospel of John, the disciple John frequently refers to himself in the third person as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'." 4 One might argue that Jesus loved all of his followers in a non-sexual way. Thus to identify Jesus' love for John in a special way might indicate a sexual relationship. The disciple was "the" beloved. He was in a class by himself.

Taken from: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jegay.htm

Their motivation could be simply to call Jesus a fag, if that is the case then I would have to agree with you, or their motivation could be sincere, and desire to help end Christian based homophobia. It is hard to tell just by looking at that poster.

[beam me up scottie]

31. Not to me,

but I can see why it would be to gays.

Gotta give props to all you DU christians who barely blinked at it, I can just imagine the outrage if it was posted on another internet forum (or even in GD).

[struggle4progress]

32. What is the intent of the image?

Interpretation might differ, depending on whether or not the image was intended to offend

Other intents might also be offensive

For example, Is the image intended to perpetuate some gender stereotype? Accusations of homosexuality sometimes function merely as a method of reinforcing gender stereotypes: for example, if the intended cultural norm is that males are rational and strong, then emotional or sensitive men might be accused of being "queers" or "faggots" (even if actually straight) merely in order to reinforce norms through shame. The gospel message, that one does right by loving one's neighbors, potentially contradicts some notions of masculinity: is the image intended to ridicule the gospel message as something suggesting sexual deviance?

Or, for another example, Is the image intended to ridicule agape by deliberately confusing agape with sensuality?

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

33. I get the feeling that it is a little bit trolly

What do atheism and a gay Jesus have in common? This seems to be more of an effort to attack Christianity rather than a serious, intelligent question or debate.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. It's a non sequitur

"Jesus was gay; therefore God doesn't exist."

Doesn't quite work as a syllogism. :P

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. Of course it is.

It will cause offence to a great many people, ergo it is offensive, by definition.

It's also clearly deliberately intended to offend, but that's not quite the same thing.

[knitter4democracy]

37. As a Christian, meh. As a person, yeah.

What would his being gay have anything to do with anything? Why use gay as an insult or to titillate?

I've seen worse, so as a Christian, I just shrug and say whatever. The poster's not an icon (Jesus wasn't that white), and it just says what some people have argued for ages. No biggie. It does read like yet another slam on our gay brothers, though, and that's not cool.

[frogmarch]

40. What about Mickey Mouse?

Did he have a homosexual relationship?

Same thing, since neither character ever existed.

[Bragi]

41. Okay, I can answer now

I've perused the thread and respond as follows to the question: Is this image offensive?

Yes, the image is offensive because it would likely give offense to Christians who harbour anti-gay sentiments, and might also offend non-Christians who take offense when religious believers of any sort are offended because of their beliefs.

For my part, I am Bragi, and I approve of this image.

- B

[and-justice-for-all]

43. Not at all...I would like to have a copy actually...

how can it be offensive since both characters are fiction?

[pokerfan]

46. I suppose this is offensive